"Good Shoot" ????

Frequently I see the phrase "good shoot" used, often referring to law enforcement action wherein an officer is involved in a shooting of a suspect and people, in defending their actions, refer to it as a "good shoot". I've heard numerous persons in law enforcement also use this terminology, both in person and here on ATS (both present and former LEO's included).

Most recently, the verdict in the law enforcement shooting of Daniel Shaver was handed down. The officer who shot Shaver, one Mitchell Brailsford of the Mesa, AZ PD, was acquitted of 2nd Degree Murder charges. In the ensuing uproar, numerous present and former LEO's (both here on ATS and elsewhere) have referred to Brailsford's actions as a "good shoot". It's like techno-jargon for cops and cop wannabes. However, in reality the phrase "good shoot" is really meant to de-escalate what actually happened, to dehumanize it. To make it like "good lunch" or "good outcome". Like humans are just some piece of meat, and a "good shoot" didn't waste any of the meat.

Tell you what, let's get something straight; there is never a such thing as a "good shoot" where another human being loses their life! There may be "justifiable" killings, there may be "required" killings in order to prevent greater harm and tragedy, but there is never a such thing as a "good shoot"!

As a conservative, patriotic American and avid gun enthusiast, I'll be right up front...I hate the term "good shoot" when it's used in a police action! It's insulting to me personally, and demeaning to every human on the other side of that gun barrel. To me, a "good shoot" is one where I go out with some friends and we shoot up some clay birds at the sporting clays range, or go to the target range and punch a bunch of 'X' rings at long distance...that, to me, is a "good shoot". Shootings that wind up with someone in a pine box buried 6 feet under is never a "good shoot", no matter how you package it. Never.

Why not use words like "cull" too??? 'yeah, he had to dump the whole magazine to cull the herd, and he dropped a bunch of those pups too...so it was a good shoot. I mean, let's dehumanize things even more, shall we?

Let's call it what it is, a "killing", where a human being lost their life. Fine if you want to insert words like 'justified' or 'self-defense' in front of that word, but let's not minimize what really happened.

Bottom line...there is no such thing as a "good shoot" where someone else dies as a result!!!!! ...Ever!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

How about a terrorist packed with explosives running towards a group of people..
But a cop 100 feet away see the guy, pulls the gun, fire once and take out the terrorist, saving many lives.
A guy next to him, pat him on the shoulder and exhales... "good shoot man.. good shot"

ok ?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I have no problem with the terminology, when it is a good shoot. In the case of shaver, that was obviously not a “good shoot”.

An unarmed family man taking five rounds from a scared cop is never a “good shoot”

a reply to: Spacespider

I have no problem with "good shot" as an acknowledgement by a fellow officer after making a difficult shot in a dynamic environment while under stress...in the moment. No issue at all.

However, the "good shoot" (two 'o's), after the fact, has a much different context! 'Good shot' and 'good shoot' mean two completely diferent things in this context. One refers to a specific action, the other refers to the event as a whole.

I'll be the first to say a good terrorist is a DEAD terrorist, but I'll never refer to the event of killing him as a "good shoot".

See the difference?

a reply to: Woodcarver

Normally you and I are in pretty uniform general agreement, but I disagree with you on this.

There is never a right time to use the phrase "good shoot". Again, "justifiable shooting" maybe, but not "good shoot".

There is nothing 'good' about having to kill someone. Ask anyone who's ever been in combat.

And, to further push the discussion toward the extremes (for clarity)...there is nothing 'good' about war either, and the fundamental underpinning of war is about killing people, hence the loathing of the phrase "good shoot".

And just for the record, I'm not some religious fanatic either, and this isn't some morality bent. It's just a statement of fact and observation.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That video f##### me up man.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If police and their fan boys were forced to use terms like "justifiable" or "self defence" kill, then terminologically speaking, they would get justly ragged on for it.

First of all, shooting an unarmed person is never justifiable, unless they present an ACTUAL threat to someones life, not an imagined or possible threat, but an actual one. Reasonable people accept this, others do not. The same applies for the term "self defence kill", because again, if there is not an actual threat, you are not defending your own life by shooting a person, only taking someone elses.

Going on what an officer THINKS is going on, in any given situation, rather than what is actually the case, is what has led to this mess. Its wrong. If officers can ever be acquitted when its their rounds in the defenceless corpse, when the unarmed person was not capable of presenting an actual threat to the officers life, when their fear and imagination are what caused them to fire their guns, not their quick wits, their sharp eyes, or the sorts of skills that people assume should be present in officers but are not (like the speed of reflexes necessary to permit them to, with ease and without overmuch increased threat to themselves, establish for certain that a threat exists before actually firing their weapons, for example).

All sorts of people, including police officers, have been throwing out excuse after excuse, pathetic appeal to this and that, whining, bleating and hiding behind the law (the idiot cousin of justice), all to avoid one crucial point.

If an officer cannot make better calls than this, they should not have a job which requires them to carry a gun. Many, including former and current law enforcement officers on this very site, will argue the point, take offense, get snowflakey about this, but its true. They can bleat about how little training time they get on the state, how much it would cost to properly train them all to the standard necessary to avoid these situations, and they can do it until they are blue in the face...

If a person has the CORRECT respect for life, for law and order, and for justice, the sort of respect for these things which qualifies them to contemplate a career in enforcement of the law, then they should be more willing to hand in their issue gun and their badge, than they are to go to work without the necessary, incredible amounts of training required to make perfect performance in situations like these, and many others, a reality. And why? Because to turn up to work intent on anything other than perfect performance where human life is concerned, is criminally insane. Being prepared to brush something off because you cannot train for it is a cop out. Being prepared to hide behind a technicality is a cop out. Being prepared to argue that a shooting of an unarmed man is justified, legitimate, fair, right, good, supportable in the slightest, makes a person nothing more than a damned savage, unfit to coexist with regular society, a damned animal, no better than the criminals who rot in prisons the world over, and worse than some.

Those defending this stuff should be ashamed of themselves, but I am sure they lack the capacity to feel any such thing.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Those defending this stuff should be ashamed of themselves, but I am sure they lack the capacity to feel any such thing.

You see, and that's just it; that's actually my point. The reason people "lack the capacity to feel" anything is precisely because of phrases like "good shoot". It diminishes the reality of what has happened into non-human, non-threatening, politically correct terms. Jargon, if you will, to shield people's emotions from what really took place.

How about justified shoot?

That means the same damn thing but sounds more warm and fuzzy.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Seriously, why argue this semantic? It's a phrase that represents that that use of a firearm was within policy and law, and nothing more.

Personally, I use the phrase "justified shooting," because that's exactly what it is, but "good shoot," unless you're looking to be bothered by something, is not a phrase that is meant to dehumanize the shooting of a human being.

Honestly, you are the first person that I have ever heard bring this up...and I've worked for defense attorneys before, and even they use the term from time to time.

We can acknowledge that it's not the most professional phrase, but I think that you're reeeeeally reaching, here, trying to say that it's a concerted effort to dehumanize shooting someone. But then again, this is your rant with your opinion, but if we need a safe space because of the phrase "good shoot," we might be trying to hard to be offended.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It's a very interesting point as language does have enormous power. In my experience, police forces, or individual units, with poor leadership often have an "us v. them mentality". In those circumstances, I don't think officers think much more of people they shoot than you do of the clay disks that you shoot.

Also, dehumanization is often key to the short-term mental health of the the individual pulling the trigger. I would imagine that taking another's life, even in a situation where it is morally justified, is a particularly difficult thing to handle. The initial feelings may be assuaged when you see the dead person as being less than human, or at least less than you. I have seen this mentality develop in people who have been prison guards for too long. At times they develop a completely animalistic view of those they are helping to imprison in order to justify the harm being done to other humans.

Sorry, couldn't stop myself.

As for the matter at hand - Spacespider said it. There ARE moments, when "good shoot" can be applied.

If someone is shot, it should be a last resort, where all other options have failed. There's nothing good about it, regardless of the actions of the person killed, nor should it be publicised as such.

Shooting should be a response, not a reaction, so I don't think the snap-judgement argument holds weight.

Nearly every execution that hits the media seems to be avoidable in some way.

If you have to shoot, you've already failed, IMO. Someone dies and that's bad for everyone. At least it should be a bad thing. Fear is not a good enough reason to kill without consequence.

If you can't handle high stress situations without knee-jerking on the trigger, what good are you to the populace? You become more dangerous than the criminals.

No such thing as a good shoot. Characterising any killing as such is fairly telling as to the mindset of the person doing so.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Good shoot is a reflection on a day shooting at the gun range. Good shooting, that was fun, I'm really on target today. Like golf or any other 'sport', it belittles the event. Kind of meh, that was 'good'.

It also implies many rounds fired, just like buddies (or cops) do at at range. A scheduled 'shoot' , shooting event, target practice, gunning down peons, whatever.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yeah, I'm just looking for something to be bothered by. It's called killing, but by a different, warmer and fuzzier, name.

Good shoot.

Edit - Because, it's a lot easier to say "I was involved in a shooting today, but fortunately it was a good shoot"...as opposed to having to say "I had to kill someone today". And, it should be harder!

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That video f##### me up man.

This is why I NEVER watch intraweb videos of abhorrent behavior, EVER as there is no way to "Unsee" them. So the 'common passerby' gets to carry that energy around with them.

I'm also a medically retired police officer from Ca. that was diagnosed w/PTSD w/a plethora of other crap. I also agree w/the O.P. that there is no such thing as a "Good Shoot" And when terms used by a certain profession become 'common tongue' then the phrase loses its original meaning because now the definition is 'anyman's opinion' That doesn't wash.

Same as "Routine Traffic Stop" routine for whom? Every one of the hundreds of the car stops I conducted were different from the next. Now I hear the news anchor start "Suspect shot after routine traffic stop goes haywire.." Then I guess it wasn't 'routine' to begin with???


Also look for "Execution of a Search Warrant" Now what happens if someone gets shot?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I tend to agree with you on this.

"Good shoot" is basically a kind of verbal shorthand and, because of this, it feels somewhat disrespectful. In my opinion it downplays the gravity of the action taken.

Summarising a complex, serious and difficult situation with what amounts to a throwaway remark doesn't really do the situation justice.

I feel we should try to maintain a certain level of respect and decorum when we're talking about one person being forced to kill another.

By ensuring the use of respectful language and a respectful tone when discussing these matters we, by extension, maintain the respect for the gravity of the act and the resultant aftermath (for the perpetrator, the victim and the families involved).

One cannot expect to be respected when one is disrespectful to others.

If the police officers using this language find that they are, in turn, on the receiving end of disrespectful remarks and/or a lack of empathy and decency, it would be hard to argue that they have any legitimate grounds to complain.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Just like you say about the "standard of murder," the meaning of 'good shoot' should...well, how did you say it? Oh yeah, the meaning of 'good shoot' "is pretty easy to explain to all but the least educated of people."

It's interesting, though, that you imply that, somehow, because of the phrase used, someone who has to take another human being's life will not be as affected by it as if they used other words. I'd love to see the psychology behind this claim on this particular matter...care to share?

The problem that I have with your rant is this: I have yet to know anyone who has, or has relayed the experience of someone that they know having to kill a human being who it did not negatively affect for many years, if not haunt them forever. I am a veteran, so I know my share of people who have had to shoot at and into other human beings, and not one of them comes away unaffected, no matter what words that they use to discuss it.

Point being, bitching about a phrase and disregarding more important things concerning the taking of a human life seems exceptionally petty in the grand scheme of things. You're free to rant and moan on about it, but I'm also free to disregard your assertions and be skeptical of your claim that the phrasing will make any difference.

Maybe I'm just sick of all of the "snowflakey" issues surrounding words and phrases and how they hurt sensibilities and I'm taking it out on your rant...that still doesn't negate my points, though.

The words don't matter as much as the meaning, and I disagree with your interpretation of the intended meaning of using those words. Others can agree--that's the beauty of it all.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Heh, well, I'm pretty sure if you go back and read some of my history here you will quickly find I'm anything BUT a 'snowflake'!!! LOL!!!

In any case, fair enough. Yes, I've carved this particular phrase out of many others as a hot button for me. I stand by my assertions on this thread, yours not withstanding. Perhaps I place a higher value on 'slang' terms being used for taking someone's life than you do. I don't know, just me I guess.

I'm off to a "good shoot" later this evening, but I'm pretty confident nobody other than inanimate clay pigeons will be shot!

Best.