Black guy shot in New Orleans by police (black police did not draw theirguns, white police did)

Notice on the amature video that caught part of the situation that all
the white officers had their guns pointed at this guy all the time but
the black officers (if they had their guns drawn at all) kept them
down at their sides.

I guess they had to shoot the guy 10 times in the chest because he was
too far away to get a good shot at his legs. Besides, shooting him in
the legs would be cruel.

I guess all the tasers owned by NO police were all shorted out by the
flood.

The cop(s) that shot him are now qualified to be Air Marshalls because
they have demonstrated sufficient skill at identifing and dealing with
mentally derranged people.

Fly Guy writes:

Notice on the amature video that caught part of the situation
that all the white officers had their guns pointed at this guy
all the time but the black officers (if they had their guns
drawn at all) kept them down at their sides.

Have you considered the possibility that this says worse things
about the black officers than it does about the white officers?

Maybe the black officers *should've* had their weapons at the
ready under the circumstances. It's quite possible that such
hesitation will prove fatal someday, either to some of those
black officers themselves, to their colleages, or to innocent
members of the public. After all, merely raising one's weapon
doesn't compel one to pull the trigger, _n'est-ce pas?_


I guess they had to shoot the guy 10 times in the chest because
he was too far away to get a good shot at his legs. Besides,
shooting him in the legs would be cruel.

That's right. If a good, clean shot to the chest is good enough
for a deer, it's certainly good enough for a deranged human.


I guess all the tasers owned by NO police were all shorted out
by the flood.

You're certainly doing a lot of hostile second-guessing, for someone
who wasn't even present at the scene.


The cop(s) that shot him are now qualified to be Air Marshalls
because they have demonstrated sufficient skill at identifing
and dealing with mentally derranged people.

Maybe the upshot (heh) of this is that mentally deranged (like
there's any other kind) people and their keepers will have
second thoughts about commercial flying. That might just be
better for all concerned.

Now, if we can just find a way to dissuade people with infants and
small children...



Geoff

--
"A foolish consistency is the knob-gobblin' of small minds."

On 27 Dec 2005 14:50:45 -0800, (Geoff Miller)
wrote:



Fly Guy writes:

Notice on the amature video that caught part of the situation
that all the white officers had their guns pointed at this guy
all the time but the black officers (if they had their guns
drawn at all) kept them down at their sides.

Have you considered the possibility that this says worse things
about the black officers than it does about the white officers?

Maybe the black officers *should've* had their weapons at the
ready under the circumstances. It's quite possible that such
hesitation will prove fatal someday, either to some of those
black officers themselves, to their colleages, or to innocent
members of the public. After all, merely raising one's weapon
doesn't compel one to pull the trigger, _n'est-ce pas?_


I guess they had to shoot the guy 10 times in the chest because
he was too far away to get a good shot at his legs. Besides,
shooting him in the legs would be cruel.

That's right. If a good, clean shot to the chest is good enough
for a deer, it's certainly good enough for a deranged human.

I guess if one good shot to the chest is good then TEN shots to the
chest is even better? Right Miller?

you can't take a chance that the perp might live.

Is that your thinking, Miller?




I guess all the tasers owned by NO police were all shorted out
by the flood.

You're certainly doing a lot of hostile second-guessing, for someone
who wasn't even present at the scene.


The cop(s) that shot him are now qualified to be Air Marshalls
because they have demonstrated sufficient skill at identifing
and dealing with mentally derranged people.

Maybe the upshot (heh) of this is that mentally deranged (like
there's any other kind) people and their keepers will have
second thoughts about commercial flying. That might just be
better for all concerned.

Now, if we can just find a way to dissuade people with infants and
small children...



Geoff

Fly Guy wrote:
Notice on the amature video that caught part of the situation that all
the white officers had their guns pointed at this guy all the time but
the black officers (if they had their guns drawn at all) kept them
down at their sides.

I guess they had to shoot the guy 10 times in the chest because he was
too far away to get a good shot at his legs. Besides, shooting him in
the legs would be cruel.

I do not know the facts of this case, but if you are shooting at someone
, you would aim for the larger target. Unlike what you see in the
movies, it isn't really super easy to shoot a weapon out of someone's hand.


I guess all the tasers owned by NO police were all shorted out by the
flood.

Maybe too many people complained about the police using them.



The cop(s) that shot him are now qualified to be Air Marshalls because
they have demonstrated sufficient skill at identifing and dealing with
mentally derranged people.

Again, not responding to this specific instance, because I don't know
the facts, however, what is the difference if the dangerous person is
mentally ill or not? If a threat is perceived, should the behave any
differently if the person is mentally ill?

john wrote:
On 27 Dec 2005 14:50:45 -0800, (Geoff Miller)
wrote:



Fly Guy writes:

I guess they had to shoot the guy 10 times in the chest because
he was too far away to get a good shot at his legs. Besides,
shooting him in the legs would be cruel.

That's right. If a good, clean shot to the chest is good enough
for a deer, it's certainly good enough for a deranged human.

I guess if one good shot to the chest is good then TEN shots to the
chest is even better? Right Miller?

you can't take a chance that the perp might live.

Is that your thinking, Miller?

Cops are trained to fire their guns only as a last resort, but when
they shoot they shoot to kill. A wounded suspect is extremely
dangerous. If the cop thinks the situation warrants shooting then it
warrants killing. Or, conversely, if it doesn't warrant killing the
suspect then don't shoot at all.

Cops are specifically trained *NOT* to shoot at the suspects legs.
That's only in the movies.

Tchiowa wrote:

Cops are trained to fire their guns only as a last resort,

The guy is on a wide-open street, in broad daylight, surrounded by 20
cops who are all no further from him than 25 feet.

After 1 minute, it's clear to everyone that he is mentally unstable
and following him for another 20 minutes down the street, screaming at
him to do this or that will not do any good because he won't respond.
So shoot the guy in the leg for christ sake. Do it from a distance of
20 feet. All your cop buddies are standing buy, ready to unload their
guns into the guy's head or chest if he lunges for ya.

What possible risk was there to shoot the guy in the legs? His legs
were as big as tree trunks - you weren't going to miss. He wasn't
listening to you, telling him to drop that small knife and lie on the
ground. You knew he was mental (or on drugs) so what's the point?
There was plenty of opportunity to use non-lethal force, and it was
safe to do so. There was plenty of backup fire-power.

Cops hate people that don't respond. To all cops, their adversary is
always sane, crafty, super-human, dangerous, intelligent, and in
control of their faculties. Even when presented with feeble,
non-weapon-carrying, disabled or weak adversaries, cops think they are
dealing with the monster from Alien or Preditor. It's a combination
of their cop life-style, and adrenaline. They over-react. Ask Rodney
King.

I told you that humans aren't designed for jobs that entail activities
that are rarely or never performed during years on the job. All the
cops involved thought they were facing a life-threatening situation,
and I bet all of them have never faced such a situation before -
because if they had, that guy would still be alive. Instead, the
primative animal instinct of the hunt kicked in, and they all thought
they were facing a siber-toothed tiger, and they were moving in for
the kill.

but when they shoot they shoot to kill.

Is that the only shooting they are capable of? In a controlled
situation like that, where there was no split-second action? They
were following that guy for at least several minutes. He didn't just
lunge out at them from a dark alley in the middle of the night.

A wounded suspect is extremely dangerous.

Not when he's surrounded by a dozen cops with probably combined
hundred rounds. It's not a mono-a-mono situation we're talking
about. The guy didn't have a gun, a rocket launcher, or a grenade.
He had what looked like a 6" knife.

Cops are specifically trained *NOT* to shoot at the
suspects legs. That's only in the movies.

In this situation, not shooting the guy in the legs when there was
plenty of opportunity is criminal. Why is the bar set so low for
police behavior and skill?

On 27 Dec 2005 18:31:57 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:


john wrote:
On 27 Dec 2005 14:50:45 -0800, (Geoff Miller)
wrote:



Fly Guy writes:

I guess they had to shoot the guy 10 times in the chest because
he was too far away to get a good shot at his legs. Besides,
shooting him in the legs would be cruel.

That's right. If a good, clean shot to the chest is good enough
for a deer, it's certainly good enough for a deranged human.

I guess if one good shot to the chest is good then TEN shots to the
chest is even better? Right Miller?

you can't take a chance that the perp might live.

Is that your thinking, Miller?

Cops are trained to fire their guns only as a last resort, but when
they shoot they shoot to kill. A wounded suspect is extremely
dangerous. If the cop thinks the situation warrants shooting then it
warrants killing. Or, conversely, if it doesn't warrant killing the
suspect then don't shoot at all.

Cops are specifically trained *NOT* to shoot at the suspects legs.
That's only in the movies.

Hey asshole Tchiowa:

Don't you understand sarcasm?

FLY GUY was being SARCASTIC in his comments about shooting at the
legs.

john writes:

I guess if one good shot to the chest is good then TEN shots to the
chest is even better? Right Miller?

Ooh, you're trying to earn machismo cred by addressing me by my last
name. WhatEVER shall I do?

Actually, no. While I can certainly understand the visceral appeal
of pumping some dirtbag full of hot lead, it would've been a waste
of ammo under the circumstances.


you can't take a chance that the perp might live.

Is that your thinking, Miller?

Indeed it is. Go to the head of the class.




Geoff

--
"A foolish consistency is the knob-gobblin' of small minds."

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...


I guess all the tasers owned by NO police were all shorted out by the
flood.

According to an interview with the police chief of NO, they had no tazers.
Those are reserved to SWAT units, which were not present.
He said he felt that the tazer was of questionable value, that there had
been
some deaths with tazers, or some suchlike. Doubletalk.

I think this shooting in NO was poorly handled. Maybe it was necessary,
but rather poorly organized and implemented.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:49:16 GMT, wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...


I guess all the tasers owned by NO police were all shorted out by the
flood.

According to an interview with the police chief of NO, they had no tazers.
Those are reserved to SWAT units, which were not present.
He said he felt that the tazer was of questionable value, that there had
been
some deaths with tazers, or some suchlike. Doubletalk.

I think this shooting in NO was poorly handled. Maybe it was necessary,
but rather poorly organized and implemented.


I saw the video of the standoff on TV and it did not show the actual
shooting.

It was an amazing video. It shows the victim completely SURROUNDED by
policemen all pointing their guns at him.

The news show said that a total of 10 bullets were fired by 3 of the
officers. I wonder how the shooting started.

what made the first cop fire? Was he in danger?

What prompted the other 2 cops to fire? nervousness? Were they in any
danger?

What prompted the cops to fire so many times?