77 yr old man shot by police after 911 call

I can see a number of precautions that could have been taken to prevent this from happening over the textbook 'shoot 1st and ask later' policy held my most law enforcement communities. #1 is why are they carrying tazers if they won't use them when an opportunity arises? #2 is these 911 operators should have the focus of the caller. The operator should have known the caller was armed and telling the caller don't walk up to a cop waving a gun. In the situation presented to these officers and the obvious deficient training available over the last couple of decades, I can't say anything against them.

A south Seattle man who was alarmed by a disturbance outside his home Sunday night was shot and killed by police when he met them at his door with a gun.

The man had called 9-1-1 using his medical alert relay service, said Detective Mark Jamieson.
"He was talking about the lights outside and said he had a weapon and wasn't afraid to use it," Jamieson said.

OregonLive

Beware, you cannot defend yourself from criminals. So the guy didn't know it was the cops and fire dept., he was concearned, then gets blasted for trying to protect himself


Cops learn your jobs. Yes, this means you.

reply to post by GoldenRuled

If someone had firearm aimed at you, or someone else in close proximity, and you had a firearm yourself: Would you give that individual time to pull the trigger?

I certainly wouldn't!

See ya,
Milt

What happened to shoot to disable in the first instance? At least that way if the cops have made a bad call on the situation, the person won't die.
Mind you, a dead person can't sue them for damages afterward I guess.

reply to post by CthulhuMythos

What happened to shoot to disable in the first instance?

In reality, that went to the grave with many of those that attempted to do so. What makes you feel that injuring someone will prevent them from pulling the trigger, and possibly killing someone else?

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by GoldenRuled

 

If someone had firearm aimed at you, or someone else in close proximity, and you had a firearm yourself: Would you give that individual time to pull the trigger?

I certainly wouldn't!

See ya,
Milt

Takes the same amount of time to pull the trigger on a tazer as it does on a pistol. Tazers are supposed to be the alternative to deadly force. I've only read where they've been used to kill people already in custody more than any other related stories.

reply to post by GoldenRuled

Takes the same amount of time to pull the trigger on a tazer as it does on a pistol.

True, but you're overlooking the very real likelihood of the Taser actually causing someone holding a firearm to involuntarily discharge that weapon.

If you have ever experienced a strong electrical shock, you should understand how that could happen. If you haven't, perhaps this will help:

Someone struck by a Taser experiences stimulation of his or her sensory nerves and motor nerves, resulting in strong involuntary muscle contractions.

Source

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


My personal experience with playing around with a stun gun was dropping it. Anything over 150 volts usually creates a snapping effect. Basically the opposite of what you're saying. As I said, I dont blame the law for the end result. It was 1 of those situations that should have been approached differently as a matter of policy. They're paid to do what they do. They swore an oath to a higher standard of honor and ethics. Something most are becoming quite deficient in.

the new rule of common sense for these days is to never let anyone see a weapon....that's brandishing.....it's the last thing needed really....and yes I think we should bounce the bullets off the pavement ...not this what do they call it two shots center mass....rookies

reply to post by GoldenRuled

My personal experience with playing around with a stun gun was dropping it. Anything over 150 volts usually creates a snapping effect.

What do you mean by snapping effect? Furthermore, comparing a stun gun to a Taser is about the same as comparing peanuts to watermelons.

A stun gun only creates local pain, whereas a Taser completely disrupts control of one's voluntary muscle control. Due to reflexes, that could likely cause one to involuntarily close their hands, thus discharging a firearm.

My advise: Don't ever trust a Taser in a gunfight. I know I wouldn't.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by GBP/JPY

the new rule of common sense for these days is to never let anyone see a weapon

That's not a "new rule of common sense" at all.

I'm almost sixty years old, and the following are three rules that my father drilled into my head when using firearms:
1) Never treat a firearm as if it were unloaded.

2) Never draw a firearm on anyone unless you intend to shoot them. If you do so, don't hesitate to pull the trigger.

3) If someone draws a firearm on you, expect them to shoot without hesitation.

According to rule number 3, the cops in this incident acted properly.

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by CthulhuMythos

 

What happened to shoot to disable in the first instance?

In reality, that went to the grave with many of those that attempted to do so. What makes you feel that injuring someone will prevent them from pulling the trigger, and possibly killing someone else?

See ya,
Milt

Hmmm, kinda thought the sudden and all encompassing pain from getting shot in the knee or the gun arm, or wherever, might put a stop to things, but then again, maybe not. I guess this is where tasars come in as a first instance for disabling, though I can't say I like these as they tend to be very misused as a pain compliance weapon. Not an easy call really is it?

reply to post by CthulhuMythos

What happened to shoot to disable in the first instance?

If I'm not mistaken police training instructs officers to shoot to kill. Simply because the perp can still shoot back.

In my local area a few years back we had an incident. If I remember correctly five officers were shooting at a car that was trying to run over an officer. They fired between 40 - 50 rounds at the driver. Not one shot hit the perp.

reply to post by samkent


Yeah I see the logic in that now.
As much as I don't like the police, nor do I trust them, as there seems to be an increasing amount of 'bad apples' in their fold (not just in USA but here in the UK too), I do appreciate how hard a job it is with the increasing crime rates. Even worse for USA as there are guns everywhere and so being in the police means you really are in a 'war' like situation all the time where you never know if the dude you are chasing is going to fire at you.
It is quite a difficult situation really, as I can see the sense of self protection and gun rights (even if it is mainly to stop oppression by the authorities) but it is a bit like a rod for your own back, as innocent people, scared and/or brandishing a gun, are getting killed, like the case recently where the guy held hostage managed to escape and was then gunned down by the police because they didn't know he was not the bad guy trying to get away and the guy in total panic knowing his captor was shooting at him did not stop when told to by the police.

Why do we continue to have the exact same argument over the exact same type of story with the exact same people saying the exact same thing, like every week?

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by GoldenRuled

 

My personal experience with playing around with a stun gun was dropping it. Anything over 150 volts usually creates a snapping effect.

What do you mean by snapping effect? Furthermore, comparing a stun gun to a Taser is about the same as comparing peanuts to watermelons.

A stun gun only creates local pain, whereas a Taser completely disrupts control of one's voluntary muscle control. Due to reflexes, that could likely cause one to involuntarily close their hands, thus discharging a firearm.

My advise: Don't ever trust a Taser in a gunfight. I know I wouldn't.

See ya,
Milt

That's not true. They both use the same static electricity to give you the same 3rd degree burn. Try it for yourself and know for sure. The concept of a local pain when they both literally short circuit your body's central nervous system is new to me if you would care to elaborate.

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by GoldenRuled

 

My personal experience with playing around with a stun gun was dropping it. Anything over 150 volts usually creates a snapping effect.

What do you mean by snapping effect? Furthermore, comparing a stun gun to a Taser is about the same as comparing peanuts to watermelons.

A stun gun only creates local pain, whereas a Taser completely disrupts control of one's voluntary muscle control. Due to reflexes, that could likely cause one to involuntarily close their hands, thus discharging a firearm.

My advise: Don't ever trust a Taser in a gunfight. I know I wouldn't.

See ya,
Milt

That's not true. They both use the same static electricity to give you the same 3rd degree burn. Try it for yourself and know for sure. The concept of a local pain when they both literally short circuit your body's central nervous system is new to me if you would care to elaborate.
See Ya
Milt

reply to post by CthulhuMythos


Pain becomes somewhat less important when you're talking about some thug who's hopped up on PCP and meth. The other thing to think about is the size of the target. A knee is what, maybe four inches square? An elbow's smaller and more hidden in most postures. A torso is more like 12 inches by 18 inches. When you're talking about a target that might be moving, and might be shooting back at you, it's far easier to deliver a center-mass hit than to try for a disabling area.

Why do we collectively defend the authorities, excuses???????

Sometimes, there just is no excuse, for their trigger happiness!!!

Or, we could simply admit, their training for psychological situations, is simply outdated, or, they've never actually received any actual training, for emotional, psychological, highly charged incidents, that are beyond their knowledge of proper reaction!!!!

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by CthulhuMythos

 

Pain becomes somewhat less important when you're talking about some thug who's hopped up on PCP and meth. The other thing to think about is the size of the target. A knee is what, maybe four inches square? An elbow's smaller and more hidden in most postures. A torso is more like 12 inches by 18 inches. When you're talking about a target that might be moving, and might be shooting back at you, it's far easier to deliver a center-mass hit than to try for a disabling area.

What a scary thought, someone whacked out on PCP or meth brandishing a gun. Makes me quite glad to be in the UK to be honest. Yeah I do see your point with target size.
So what would you suggest could work to avoid innocent people who are in a scared situation not getting killed by police by mistake? Is there a way to achieve that?