I'm wondering how widespread this line of thought is?

[Averageman]

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/08/...7|htmlws-sb-bb|dl10|sec1_lnk2&pLid=-233152686



An Alabama police detective who was beaten with his own gun says he didn't shoot his attacker because he was afraid of the media backlash.

He gave this statement to CNN:
"'A lot of officers are being too cautious because of what's going on in the media. I hesitated because I didn't want to be in the media like I am right now.' He goes on to say about local police officers, 'We don't want to be in the media. It's hard times right now for us,'" CNN's Nick Valencia said.

He's lucky to get away with just being pistol whipped.

 

[Lord Teapot]

why didnt he just pull his mace? i carry mace and im not even a cop, just for the kind of situation where i'm iffy on whether i really want to kill and deal with the backlash.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Lord Teapot:

why didnt he just pull his mace? i carry mace and im not even a cop, just for the kind of situation where i'm iffy on whether i really want to kill and deal with the backlash.

If you are ever "iffy" on whether you "really want to kill and deal with the backlash" and you have the choice, you had better not shoot.

Most states are a lot like Florida: "use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself]....".

The operative word is necessary.

 

[BSA1]

Having been involved in the use of Mace on numerous occasions it is not a reliable stopper. There are some people that Mace simply does not affect and people like me who have been Maced enough times that are able to ignore it and continue fighting. In addition Mace has several disadvantages. In my current position Department policy requires I carry issued Mace. However there is nothing that says I have to use it.

 

[Sam1911]

when just the SIGHT of your (ready) gun does not suffice, you are dealing with a rabid dog, so no mace for me.

Howdy and welcome to THR.

There's certainly a kernel of wisdom in some of what you're saying, about dealing with an attacker who continues to attack you through warnings and visual (or chemical) deterrents. Yes, those points could add to your justification for using potentially lethal force.


However:

I'm going to just kill him, because of the doubt that even powerful, well placed bullets will suffice.

1) We do not shoot with the intent to "kill." We do not have the authority, as a private citizen, to choose to end the life of any other person. We DO have the right to prevent grievous harm or death to ourselves or others. So we shoot until the immediate threat is STOPPED. If he throws up his hands and surrenders, the threat is stopped. If he runs away, the threat is stopped. If you shoot and he falls wounded, unable or unwilling to continue fighting, the threat is stopped. If he dies, the threat is stopped. All are acceptable possible outcomes. But saying that you will KILL your attacker is taking things much farther than you legally (to say nothing of morally) can say. Life or death is not your CHOICE to make.

All that you achieve with Mace is an enemy who'll stalk you and catch you unawares. Dead men can't bother you anymore.

2) Don't ever, EVER, make these kinds of statements. You have NO legal justification AT ALL for using lethal force to stop someone from what they might someday do. Your only legal justification for firing a gun at someone is to stop the lethal violence they're trying to employ against you RIGHT NOW. If you make sure someone DIES because you think they'll someday "stalk" you and "bother" you (or even if you think they might try to kill you...someday) you become guilty of murder yourself.

(Or some variation of murder or manslaughter depending on the wording of your state's laws.)

We would shoot to stop an immediate threat of lethal harm or other serious bodily injury. Not a step beyond that, ever.

 

[MedWheeler]

Hard writes:

All that you achieve with Mace is an enemy who'll stalk you and catch you unawares.

Hardly a likelihood in the situation on which this thread is. The typical cop-killer (or cop-attacker) does, or attempts to do, his thing, then flees. There is no further "seek-and-destroy" agenda on his part.

Also, we don't advocate here on THR making it a mission to "kill" any attackers. We advocate saving our lives and those of others, when necessary, by stopping any threats to them.

I suggest you peruse the mission of THR through the stickies posted above each subforum.

EDIT: I see you got Sam1911's attention as quickly as you got mine..

 

[Old Fuff]

The law enforcement officer cited in the first post is right. The media will throw him to the wolves (and his employer may too) if he/she shoots a member of a "protected minority" and they aren't.

They have few viable options in a quickly escalating situation, except to try to plan ahead on how they will respond to such situations in advance, and have a clear understanding of department policy and how far it will go in backing up the rank & file.

A delay in acting may result in a seriously injured lawman/woman, but in today's environment this has unfortunately brought us to where we are. It's going to affect the ability of various agencies and departments to attract the kind of quality people they need, and increase violent crime in some "communities," but those are other issue that we needn't address here.

 

[MedWheeler]

I'd shoot with the knowledge that his death is quite possible, and perhaps likely.

But, it's not my goal. You come across as saying you'll make sure he does.

This is because you say you will kill him because you even admit that powerful, well-placed bullets may not suffice.


Your line:

I'm going to just kill him, because of the doubt that even powerful, well placed bullets will suffice.

There just aren't too many other ways to read that.

 

[Sam1911]

from sub 10 ft away, with the sort of loads that I use, I surely do expect him to die. ... You don't expect lethal effects from your shooting?

80% of gunshot victims survive. Shooting someone, no matter how quickly or with what normal service round, does not in any way mean he will die. He might. That's not up to you. As long as the attack stops, you are out of immediate danger of death and your justification for pressing the attack is GONE.

The reason for that speed of firing is to get all good hits, before he can collapse.

The reason for repeated quick shots is to break enough parts that he cannot, or chooses not, to continue to try and hurt you. There is a high probability that those same good hits will kill him, but whether he dies or lives is COMPLETELY beyond our purpose and justification.

 

[Kleanbore]

Sam nailed it.

The first prerequisite for the justification for the use of of deadly force is a basis for a reasonable belief that the initial use of force was immediately necessary--that means unavoidable--in the first place.

We are trained to shoot more than once for the sole reason that a single handgun shot is not highly likely to stop a violent assailant timely. BUT--justification to shoot in the first place does not provide carte blanche to shoot the assailant dead.

Rather , the defender will have to provide some evidence supporting a contention all of the rounds he or she fired had been necessary to stop the assailant. Evidence that the defender had received training (beforehand) to shoot several rounds in rapid succession might prove helpful.

But if there is any evidence indicating that the number of shots fired had been excessive, and if the defender cannot show that he or she simply could not reasonably have stopped firing sooner under the circumstances, the defender may be in a lot of trouble.

It is extremely unlikely that members of any jury will realize that several hits would often be needed for self defense, or that a defender might well not be able, for example , to stop shooting quickly enough as an assailant turns to avoid hitting him in the back. Winning that one could require the testimony of expert witnesses.

 

[Old Fuff]

If one looks at today's high-profile shooting incidents, both law enforcement and civilian, it should be very clear that deliberate shooting to kill is going to get one in serious trouble, and saying so on a public forum where the comments could be discovered would insure that the shooter would spend a substantial part of their life in a gray bar hotel or worse.

Even if the shooter eventually survived the legal repercussions they would likely find themselves bankrupt, unemployed, and likely unemployable. If married, divorce is probable, combined with loss of custody over any children - who then would be condemned to grow up under very harsh economic and social conditions.

With very few exceptions, it's seldom that anyone who gets into a shooting incident ends up a winner.

 

[Kleanbore]

The Old Fuff makes an important point.

See this--read, and heed.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

It is extremely unlikely that members of any jury will realize that several hits would often be needed for self defense, or that a defender might well not be able, for example , to stop shooting quickly enough as an assailant turns to avoid hitting him in the back. Winning that one could require the testimony of expert witnesses.

One of the most common specific complaints associated with the Michael Brown shooting was that Wilson must have been trying to kill Brown because there was no other reason to fire that many rounds.

Sam nailed it

Some people only learn the hard way

 

[Old Fuff]

Some people only learn the hard way

Yup...

And it's said that they're is no cure for stupid...

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by hard:

80% don't survive 3-4 chest hits, with good ammo, I assure you.

Massad Ayoob advises buying a copy of Gray's Anatomy and keeping it close for reference.

The first thing one will learn is that there are a lot of places in the chest that are not critical. Two, three, or four shots in the same lung, if they do not hit something major, may not stop immediately, and if care is given immediately, they may not kill.

Sure, some are not stopped immediately, but they DO die of such hits.

May die.

...they survive 1-2 hits to the limbs, shoulder, maybe the gut, if they get really good, really swift trauma care.

If you are shooting at someone who is close and moving at five meters per second while trying to kill you, that's where some of your shots may hit.

Six days ago, a man with a pistol opened fire on the police in our town. Four officers returned fire, hitting the attacker several times. He went down, but at this time he survives to face charges.

Nobody's doing much of anything in 1/2 second.

Except maybe shoot you twice.

Not 1 guy in 20 using a gun in self defense is a cop, ...

Interesting. Can you subtantiate that?

So why base any of the discussion on it's being a cop, hmm?

That was the original question.

Cops have had everything go their way for centuries. Now the pendulum has swung back a bit and they are crying about it.

Let's get off that tangent now.

 

[Frank Ettin]

80% don't survive 3-4 chest hits, with good ammo, I assure you....

Your assurances are worthless. You need to support your claims with evidence.

 

[herrwalther]

why didnt he just pull his mace? i carry mace and im not even a cop, just for the kind of situation where i'm iffy on whether i really want to kill and deal with the backlash.

Plain clothes Birmingham PD detectives do not carry pepper spray or other less lethal devices (taser etc). Only uniformed police officers do.

Good on the perp to turn himself in. Police who were on the manhunt (read as all of them) were not planning on taking this guy in pristine condition. It would have not ended well the longer he stayed free. Sources I know in the DA office are charging him with attempted murder of a police officer. Welcome to 15 years wearing crocs.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

@ hard:

First of all, welcome to THR! THR is a fascinating community with a lot of really interested, and interesting, people, the vast majority of whom are all about learning and sharing information.

I've read through your postings here and I'm seeing some misconceptions that pop up now and again in this, as well as other, forums. And it looks like people are doing a pretty good job of addressing them.

One thing that all people need to understand when it comes to the law and what it means is to honestly READ the applicable laws and then learn what it REALLY MEANS in the legal sense. This is often difficult because most people think that common sense should rule or that the cultural influences they were raised by enable an accurate interpretation of them.

Common sense and cultural influences, however, are no substitute for a basic understanding of the underlying legal system we live by. Many people have gone to prison/jail for the simple fact that the law didn't mean what they thought or wanted it to mean.

Please take a look at what your jurisdictional statutes say about what deadly for is and when it's justified. In fact, be able to cite the actual statutes as well as the wording.

When you read the statutes, you'll find that they do not say you can kill...only that deadly force is ALLOWED to be used under certain defined conditions.

And deadly force means the amount of force you know, or should know, may cause serious bodily harm or death.

That a death MAY result is a given, since that's part of the definition. But death is not the only possible outcome. There could be injuries of any kind, life-threatening or not, or there may be no injuries or death at all.


And beware of speaking in absolutes. Few things in life, and even fewer in the legal system, are absolute.

 

[Bobson]

Officers have been killed while hesitating like this cop did. So while it not be widespread per se, it certainly isn't isolated to this particular individual.

 

[Averageman]

More on the guy who beat the Cop.

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/08/suspect_with_violent_past_char.html

Cunningham has a criminal history dating back to at least 1999, and was just arrested in June for driving without a license . He was convicted in 2011 of disorderly conduct; 2006, second-degree assault; 2003, robbery and assault; 2000, three counts of receiving stolen property; 1999, breaking and entering a vehicle.

In addition to those convictions, Cunningham has been arrested multiple times during the same time period on charges including assault, attempted murder, robbery and menacing, but those charges were dismissed. He also has a string of traffic violation citations.

If there was ever a guy that needed to call for back up before pulling someone over, this might have been the guy.
From what I read his options were limited due to him being a plain clothes Detective. He didn't have the belt with the Tazer, Pepper Spray etc.
I would say his best bet may have to been to follow and call the guy in and wait for back-up.
BTW there was someone in the Car with the Officer.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Well, that was certainly quick

 

[Old Dog]

To answer the OP, it's definitely creeping into the way business is done on the street. We remind our officers every day that every person out there has a camera and every officer's actions will most likely be recorded.

I don't know many guys who would take a beating like that officer did, but it's probably foolish to believe that there aren't officers out there now whose mindsets aren't even a little affected by all the negative and highly publicized events over the past few years.

 

[old lady new shooter]

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/08/...7|htmlws-sb-bb|dl10|sec1_lnk2&pLid=-233152686



An Alabama police detective who was beaten with his own gun says he didn't shoot his attacker because he was afraid of the media backlash.

He gave this statement to CNN:
"'A lot of officers are being too cautious because of what's going on in the media. I hesitated because I didn't want to be in the media like I am right now.' He goes on to say about local police officers, 'We don't want to be in the media. It's hard times right now for us,'" CNN's Nick Valencia said.

He's lucky to get away with just being pistol whipped.

The story was just heartbreaking to me.

 

[old lady new shooter]

More on the guy who beat the Cop.

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/08/suspect_with_violent_past_char.html

Cunningham has a criminal history dating back to at least 1999, and was just arrested in June for driving without a license . He was convicted in 2011 of disorderly conduct; 2006, second-degree assault; 2003, robbery and assault; 2000, three counts of receiving stolen property; 1999, breaking and entering a vehicle.

In addition to those convictions, Cunningham has been arrested multiple times during the same time period on charges including assault, attempted murder, robbery and menacing, but those charges were dismissed. He also has a string of traffic violation citations.

If there was ever a guy that needed to call for back up before pulling someone over, this might have been the guy.
From what I read his options were limited due to him being a plain clothes Detective. He didn't have the belt with the Tazer, Pepper Spray etc.
I would say his best bet may have to been to follow and call the guy in and wait for back-up.
BTW there was someone in the Car with the Officer.

Why was he not in jail, is what I don't understand. Why are guys like this let off to go commit more crimes?

 

[Averageman]

Agenda driven issues allow felons like this to walk the streets, Crime statistics like Chicago gun violence to go unreported and things like Michael Brown to be spun 180 degrees.
Those who seek to disarm our Police through less than accurate and biased reporting have now given us cities like Baltimore, Ferguson and Chicago.
There is no effective way to Police them, nor protect yourself in such an environment.

I am beginning to believe this is a coming trend and we will see more of it.