1. If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

  2. Dismiss Notice

This is what I get for watching CNN

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by YogSothoth, Jul 14, 2005.

  1. YogSothoth

    YogSothoth

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    1
    I was flipping through the news channels before work this morning, and Soledad O'Brien was interviewing a former LAPD office regarding the shooting of Jose Pena and the toddler, Suzy Lopez, he was using as a shield. I know that anytime a "journalist" (and oh how lightly I use that term in reference to Ms O'Brien) offers up an opinion on how police should have handled a shooting to be wary, but she just completely pissed me off.

    Her first question was legit: why wasn't a sniper employed? The former officer had a solid reply: the results of the investigation will give us a final answer, but it's very possible that the location and position of the suspect didn't allow a sniper to set up a clean shot.

    It was the second question that set me off: why didn't the police officers just shoot the suspect in the leg?

    What? The leg? What exactly is that going to accomplish except get an armed opponent injured but still capable of shooting both the girl and the officers? What movie was she watching to think that anyone is trained for leg shots when being fired upon?

    I know there's a lot of controversy around this shooting, which is not surprising, but someone should tell her to keep her interview questions semi-intelligent.

    As an aside: this entire incident really drove home one of the drills we did during the Randy Cain training at Tyngsboro back in June.
     
  2. TonyD

    TonyD One Shot One Maggie's Drawers

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    3,780
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    South of the Mason-Dixon
    What was the reply?
     
  3. Nickle

    Nickle

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,995
    Likes Received:
    417
    Location:
    Vermont, a Free State
    My thoughts are, if you're going to shoot, shoot to kill, or don't shoot at all. I just can't feature intentionally wounding a suspect, unless there's a very good reason. Another person's safety, or the LEOs safety, would certainly be one. The suspect's safety certainly would NOT. They've already made their choice.

    It may be different for an LEO, but I hope not. The job is tough enough, without it being made more dangerous than it needs to be.
     
  4. Len-2A Training

    Len-2A Training Instructor Instructor NES Life Member NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    50,884
    Likes Received:
    8,286
    Location:
    Escaping to NH
    "Shoot to Kill" will get you convicted of at least manslaughter in MA. [YES, even if you are attacked, being raped, etc. The DA's here beleive that nobody should defend themself and even LEOs have balls and chains on their feet doing the job.]

    All the trainers I've spoken with tell you to use the term "Shoot to Stop" the threat (even LE trainers). Some believe that if the person is still standing, they are still a threat! [wink]

    This may not be unique to MA's liberal philosophy, since I first heard/read it from Mas Ayoob (NH LEO, trainer).
     
  5. Nickle

    Nickle

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,995
    Likes Received:
    417
    Location:
    Vermont, a Free State
    Yeah, I figured. It's a shame, as far as I'm concerned. I've always taught my son and daughter that if you're in that kind of situation, if you can't legally apply deadly force, then don't shoot. If you do shoot, shoot to kill.

    Stopped should be DRT (Dead Right There).

    And it's better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6.
     
  6. Lynne

    Lynne

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    13,893
    Likes Received:
    197
    Location:
    Haverhill, MA
    Len's correct - in our PP course, we tell our students that you shoot until the threat no longer exists. Definition of "no longer exists" I leave up to you, but that's what we pass on. Course, if the attacker is only wounded, he (or she, I'll be E.O. about it) can sue you for everything you own.
    [roll] I hate this damn state.
     
  7. Nickle

    Nickle

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,995
    Likes Received:
    417
    Location:
    Vermont, a Free State
    State, hell, that's a national problem. The first time I ever heard an LEO talk about shoot to kill was an El Paso city cop.

    "Dead men don't sue" is the quote.

    Yeah, it's NEVER right to "Finish the Job", if the threat is no longer a threat. That pertains to the military as well. I just don't advocate "Shooting to Wound".
     
  8. C-pher

    C-pher

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    23,187
    Likes Received:
    992
    Location:
    The Land of Confusion and Pissed off!
    Yea, that and you don't want them to sue you for robbing you or whatever.
     
  9. KMaurer

    KMaurer Moderator NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    8,654
    Likes Received:
    339
    Location:
    Litchfield, NH
    "Shoot to stop" is very, very different from "shoot to kill". It's not always necessary to kill sombody in order to stop them (although it happens a large percentage of the time). It's also true that killing somebody doesn't always stop them. One of the perps in the infamous Miami FBI shootout sustained a non-survivable would farily early on in the party, but still managed to take down two agents before accepting the fact that he was dead. There have also been instances of bad guys taking direct hits to the heart with a 12 guage slug (which of course turned the heart and a good bit of the lungs into so much hamburger), but still advancing and firing for the better part of a minute.

    In short, don't get so hung up on killing the attacker. Being focused too tightly on that can cost you your life. And talking that way can earn you a long vacation at MCI Concord. Shoot to stop the attack. Period.

    Ken
     
  10. Nickle

    Nickle

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,995
    Likes Received:
    417
    Location:
    Vermont, a Free State
    Just so there's no confusion in what I said, and after consulting Ken (thanks, Ken), I'll make my opinion a little more clear.

    1. I advocate NOT shooting, unless there is clear justification to potentially end the target's life. If you're not justified to kill them, you're not justified to wound them or even scare them by intentionally missing them. Without justification, you very well may get charged with assault, reckless endangerment or attempted murder.

    2. I advocate shooting "center mass" of the intended target.

    3. I advocate continuing to shoot until the target stops. Dead men don't always stop. Sometimes you don't have to kill someone to stop them.

    4. I advocate ceasing fire once the target stops and is no longer a threat.

    5. If the target dies in the process, so be it. His choice, he could have stopped, or not become a target in the first place. If he lives, that's his luck.

    6. I DO NOT advocate "intentionally wounding" the target by shooting other than center mass. No head shots, either. Both are difficult enough on paper, let alone in a real situation.

    7. I DO NOT advocate "finishing off" the target, in my opinion, this is MURDER, not Manslaughter.

    You can call this whatever you want.

    I hope this clears it up.
     
  11. Lynne

    Lynne

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    13,893
    Likes Received:
    197
    Location:
    Haverhill, MA
    Exactly....to everything. :D
     

Share This Page