Below is my column in the Hill on the spate of recent police shootings and the resulting calls for reforms and criminal charges. Two new incidents have occurred in the last week and both raise serious questions that must be answered on the use of lethal force. In North Carolina, Andrew Brown Jr., 42, was shot and killed during execution of an arrest warrant. He was reportedly shot in the back while trying to flee but no gun was found. In Virginia, Isaiah Brown, 32, was shot more than six times by a deputy who appears to have thought that a cellphone was a gun. The officers had previously given Brown a ride home and they were later called back to the home due to a disagreement. The tape shows Brown saying that he was going to kill his brother with a gun, but Brown told the 911 operator that he did not have a gun. These and the prior cases capture the dangerously uncertain and chaotic context of such cases. Both Brown cases raise serious questions that need to be answered on the use of lethal force.
Here is the column:
The shooting of 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant in Columbus, Ohio, has produced a torrent of objections to how police respond to armed suspects. Some, like MSNBC host Joy Reid, simply declare that the use of lethal force to stop a knife attack is “murder.” “The View” co-host Joy Behar thinks officers who come upon someone about to knife another person should shoot into the air, as a warning. President Biden has long maintained that police officers should shoot armed suspects in the leg.
However, there is a reason why police manuals do not say “aim for the leg” or “try to shoot the weapon out of the suspect’s hand.” It is called “imminent harm,” the standard governing all police shootings. The fact that many of us describe such shootings as “justified” is not to belittle these tragedies but to recognize the underlying exigencies that control the use of lethal force.
In the slow motion videos of shootings played on cable television, there often seems to be endless opportunities for de-escalation or alternatives to lethal force. None of us want to hear of the loss of another young life like Bryant’s. But Biden’s suggestion — that “instead of anybody coming at you and the first thing you do is shoot to kill, you shoot them in the leg” — is not exactly how it works, practically or legally.
When officers use lethal force, it is meant to “neutralize the threat,” not to kill someone. They are trained to fire for the center of the body because it minimizes the chances of a miss while maximizing the chances of neutralizing the suspect. Shooting for the hand or leg or weapon can endanger others and may not neutralize a suspect. Likewise, officers are not trained to use nonlethal force, like a taser, to stop a lethal attack. Tasers are sometimes ineffective in neutralizing suspects. If there is an imminent threat of lethal force, officers use lethal force to end that threat.
These dangers were evident in 2019 when Aaron Hong ran at police with a large knife as officers literally begged him to drop the knife and even moved back. Hong lurched at an officer who fired seven rounds. Despite the close proximity and aiming for the body, most of the shots appear to have missed, but Hong was hit at least once. He then got up despite his wound, ran at another officer and was grabbing his weapon when a third officer fired four more rounds. Having Biden shout from the sideline to “Shoot for the leg! Shoot for the leg!” would not have helped.
The key is the legal threshold for the use of lethal force. The Columbus police manual states: “Sworn personnel may use deadly force when the involved personnel have reason to believe the response is objectively reasonable to protect themselves or others from the imminent threat of death or serious physical harm.” That language is derived from Tennessee v. Garner in 1985 and other Supreme Court cases.
While former Obama aide Valerie Jarrett insisted that police do not need guns “in order to break up a knife fight,” the person about to be stabbed may view the matter as a tad more urgent. Yes, the police officer could have waited while calling for Bryant to drop the knife — but the other girl might be dead today, and her family might object to the officer’s failure to protect her.
By definition, the use of lethal force is justified only when a threat of death or serious bodily harm is “imminent.” At that point, even if trick shooting or firing at limbs were feasible, an imminent threat must be neutralized without delay. In the case of the Bryant shooting, police had been told that a person was trying to stab someone. Officer Nicholas Reardon was immediately faced with Bryant charging at another girl with a knife. She was in close proximity to the other girl and swinging the knife toward her when he fired four times. Under the governing standards for the use of lethal force, it was a justified shooting.
A similar scene unfolded recently in Knoxville, Tenn. Police there confronted Anthony Thompson Jr., 17, in a bathroom stall after being called by his girlfriend with a domestic abuse claim. When they tried to handcuff Thompson, he reached for a gun in his hoodie. It discharged, and officers thought he was firing on them. They shot and killed Thompson. Even with this close proximity and shooting for the center of the body, some shots apparently missed and hit another officer. Indeed, in the confusion, police thought the wounded officer had been shot by Thompson.
I have both sued and defended law enforcement officers. They work in a violent, unpredictable environment that few of us ever experience. These scenes are adrenaline-driven, chaotic moments that often allow few seconds for critical decisions. Even with extensive training, officers can shoot each other or bystanders in the flash of an encounter.
Yet, on CNN and MSNBC, hosts and guests insisted that Officer Reardon could have waited and that knife fights are common between teenagers. CNN guest and Rutgers University associate professor Brittany Cooper declared that “no Black person is truly going to be safe if we cannot be having a bad day, if we cannot defend ourselves when we think we’re gonna get jumped.”
Of course, most people who police meet are having “a bad day,” which is why the police were called. Lethal force is used in only a small percentage of these encounters. Studies show the vast majority of the roughly 1,000 civilians shot annually were armed or otherwise dangerous. According to the Washington Post, in 2019, police shot and killed 55 unarmed persons, including 14 Black and 25 white individuals. That does not mean racism is not a serious, long-standing problem in such shootings. However, this national debate over lethal force standards will achieve little unless we recognize the practical and legal realities of violent encounters.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
Anonymous, look at how big that girl is. She’s literally a perfect target for the use of a taser. Even from ten feet away she could have been effectively tased from multiple angles. That girl is so focused on attacking the other girl that a cop could have approach her to the point of using a taser so much more effectively.
The knife was heading in the direction of the victim who was in the process of being killed. The taser doesn’t work the way you think it does. Additionally I think to get to your “ten feet” from the girl with a knife the cop would have had to move considerably forward. Maybe in the process you would want the cop to measure the distance with a yardstick as well.
svelaz,
Have you ever been tazed?
Have you ever had electrodes placed on you as part of physical therapy?
Wouldn’t guarantee that it would have stopped her.
There’s more and you need to rewatch the tape.
Annddd the girl in PINK would be BLEEDING OUT by the time Reardon got “CLOSER” with his TASER!
Tasers BTW do NOT always “work” as intended.
But HEY DONT take MY word, look up up the STAT’s for yourself!!
On Jan. 20, 1981, President Reagan stood outside the Capitol for his inaugural address and declared that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” For 40 years since and with the help of Fox News for the last 25, Republicans have been undermining Americans’ faith in all aspects of governmental authority. Is it any wonder then that blacks distrust the police when Republicans preach Reagan’s gospel that “the most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help?”
“the most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help?”
Based on what you say shouldn’t that Reagan quote affect hispanics, blacks, asians and whites equally?
Meyer,
Indubitably! All Americans sadly have been propagandized by Republicans and Fox News to fear and despise federal and state authorities, civil servants and health agencies.
Of course Jeff, you must realize that what you said is not true. You must also realize that Ronald Reagan’s Presidency existed when there was no Fox News to even blame so your ideas about Fox news are badly exaggerated. Actually your history is totally distorted as well because “fear” of a strong central government existed in colonial times even before the Constitution was written and long before the Republican Party existed.
Few despise the Federal Government except for some of its actions and those that do include Democrats as well as Republicans. One of the biggest fears of The Democrat Party in former years was the loss of Freedom of Speech and a liberal understanding of our civil rights. Today’s Democrats lean towards Fascism wishing to control all aspects of American life including collectivizing the nation while getting rid of Freedom of Speech and civil liberties.
I for one do not despise the Federal Government rather have love for it and what it is supposed to be. Somehow you have not been made aware of your country’s complete history including its founding and Federalism. The problem with the Federal Government is those that wish to make it into a Fascist State.
I don’t think I had to tell you any of this for I assume this last response of yours was an attempt at humor. No one could believe that you of all people would say that and actually mean what you say.
Meyer,
In an earlier post, I stated that Fox had been poisoning the minds of Americans for only 25 years.
You said “Democrats lean towards Fascism wishing to control all aspects of American life including collectivizing the nation while getting rid of Freedom of Speech and civil liberties.”
Who is exaggerating now? Of course, if you truly believe that nonsense, I would not blame you for exterminating Democrats! You think I’m joking now? Progressives are never going to fall for Trumpism. EVER! Trumpists are liars for mendaciously defending an inveterate liar. And the only way for Trumpists to get away with their lies is to silence those who call them liars. Either by frightening us to keep our mouths shut or by rounding-up those who won’t be silent and sending us to “re-settlement camps.” Because Trumpists will not long endure being called liars to their face, they inevitably will resort to violence to save face. People like Trump who can lie without any moral inhibition can just as easily pull a trigger without thinking twice.
This is what you sound like. Bahahahahahaha Ha!
Trump 4 Evah!
“I would not blame you for exterminating Democrats! “
Take note of your rhetoric. Extermination is associated with Nazi’s and they were Fascists that controlled the media and collectivized the nation. Everyone was censored and execution was threatened. In the Senate we heard Democrat leaders telling Twitter and Facebook to censor more. We have seen riots all over the country where Democrat leaders did nothing or gave the rioters credence. We see a news media caught in proven lies. Their stories were debunked by the FBI records.
“Trumpists are liars “
I support Trump. Are you calling me a liar? Are you intending to change from civility to outright barbarism? Before you start to do those things you ought to provide your facts. It was you who said, “I just hope that we can co-exist in this country without getting into a bloody fight…”
I Have tried to keep this discussion civil. I hope you do the same.
Meyer,
You can’t be civil with liars. If you don’t believe that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar, then, yes, you are a liar. You see, I’m willing to admit that Biden lies like most if not all politicians who stretch the truth or are often disingenuous, but Trump’s lying is probably clinical as a pathology. I’m not going to argue the point. I’ll let history be the judge as more and more Trump insiders come out and disclose his lies as if we needed more proof. We’ll soon find out if he lied on his taxes. We’ll soon find out if he lied about not raping the women who have sued him for defamation for sexual assault. We’ll soon find out if he lied about the election being stolen when his lawyers and Fox broadcasters who fed Trumpists that line of bull can substantiate their claims as their defense against their defamation suits.
“I just hope that we can co-exist in this country without getting into a bloody fight…”
Sounds like something I might have said. I can’t see how we can avoid a clash unless the Republicans follow Liz Cheney’s lead and uproots Trumpism root and branch and throws it on the ash heap of history once and for all.
“If you don’t believe that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar, then, yes, you are a liar.”
Jeff, all politicians lie to some extent for good and bad reasons. I have made that comment many times. I have also stated over and over again that we need to define the word ‘lie’ and then provide examples. Doing things this way permits us to explore and compare Trump to others in a neutral fashion.
I am willing to place Trump under the same scrutiny as you are willing to place Biden and Obama. In the process, I think one can make a case that Trump was more honest than either of them involving their Presidential duties and obligations. That is my opinion. I will add that honesty also includes what they promised to do as President. Trump fulfilled most of his pledges in full or part or at least tried very hard to do so. To date, I don’t think either his predecessor or Biden has proven to be as honest about their platforms. These things can be debated civilly without the hyperbole that frequently enters such discussions.
I don’t call Biden’s lies pathologic in the sense I think you are calling Trump’s lies. Since you are making the distinction I think it is up to you to provide examples so we know what you are talking about. Those examples should be limited to his Presidential duties and obligations so that we can carefully evaluate them. They should also be significant. Civility to a great degree depends on honesty so I accept your arguments as honest ones whether I agree or disagree.
To date, based on my memory, you have never provided any such arguments though I have heard heated words involving conjecture and what you think should be done, but, these are things that do not involve Presidential duties or obligations.
The ball is in your court to prove your claims. We don’t need more rhetoric. We need significance and data.
“Sounds like something I might have said. I can’t see how we can avoid a clash unless the Republicans follow Liz Cheney’s lead and uproots Trumpism root and branch and throw it on the ash heap of history once and for all.”
Let’s be specific. Trump has different policies than Liz Cheney much like Biden has different policies than Trump. You make your solutions sound uncivil if a large number of Americans don’t yield to your opinion rather than the political process.
Out of all the police shootings of black people in the last few years only ONE case I’m aware of clearly shows the cop unjustly killing a black man. That was the Walter L. Scott case, and the officer was convicted. Still, I’ve yet to see any case where it was proven race was the reason a cop shot and/or killed a black person, not one. ALL OF THESE stories that make the headlines have one thing in common, black criminals (with long criminal histories, active warrants,etc) resisting arrest, fighting the police and/or fleeing the police. Almost all of these cases occur in the highest crime-ridden cites in America with large African America populations. White people aren’t the problem, the police aren’t the problem, “systemic racism” is not the problem…. black criminals are the problem.
The police training to shoot for the center of the chest has a rational basis at distances of 10 feet or more. But what about closer distances?
If you want to disable an arm, you don’t shoot to hit the arm, you shoot for the shoulder-collarbone-scapula area. The arm cannot be lifted after such a hit. A shoulder shot is intended to disable the associated limb.
Police would be more convincing that they stand firmly behind the right to life of a citizen were they to be investigating disabling techniques and technologies. For instance, at the firearms training range, there could be practice at delivering arm-disabling shots at close distance. Why is the training based solely on accuracy of kill shots at 25′?
If police announced a shoot-to-disable policy it would have a calming effect on police-citizen encounters. There is a reason why young black men take reckless evasive actions when they sense a police encounter has turned adversarial — their fear centers are perceiving a life v. death situation, and flooding the rest of the brain with irresistable fight v. flight instincts. Anything the police (and the media) can do to tamp down those fears will be very helpful to everyone involved.
Pbinca, as it is police officers shooting accuracy is really poor. The best you can expect is a 18-20% hit rate in a gunfight. That’s with training. You don’t have a real guarantee that an officer will be on target when faced with a deadly situation. That’s why you often see officers shooting more than they need to because they aren’t confident they are making their targets.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/blog/get-schooled/gunfights-trained-officers-have-percent-hit-rate-yet-want-arm-teachers/mDBlhDtV6Na4wJVpeu58cM/%3foutputType=amp
Svelaz,
Why don’t you go a step further and explain why its that low?
Clearly you don’t own a gun and get all your knowledge from Google.
Why not go to a range and try shooting at targets?
It’s another day at the diner with Dirty Harry. To much sugar in the coffee. It’s time to complain.
One white cop against 4 black guys…..Go ahead, make my day.
Even with cellphones being all over the place these days, its a 50/50 chance a Police unit would show up within 5 minuites!!!
Plus the “hollywood factor” Dirty Harry would definetly shoot the first one, maybe the 2nd one IF he’s lucky. Luckier still if he only gets “wounded” plus at least 3 patrons of the diner would be wounded or killed………………
The fact that people of color are both victim and perpetrators of the majority of violent crimes is getting lost in the conversation. But the leftist wish to focus on police.
Maybe we should defund people of color?
That’s so insulting to the 95% of African Americans who are law-abiding. Do you believe in the 4th Amendment, the notion that a law-abiding citizen should remain above suspicion absent evidence of a specific crime and the involvement of a specific individual? This is one of our fundamental liberties.
Granted, our brains evolved over 200,000 years to use statistical patterns to weigh risk. It’s natural that we associate a higher risk of crime when we see a young, black man dressed in gang-attire. When I say “we”, I’m including black Americans in experiencing these same perceptions.
That said, the 4th Amendment is a highly-evolved concept of justice that obliges counter-instinctual thought. It demands we put aside
mere statistical correlation as the basis for harboring suspicion.
In your snarky “defund people of color” jab, people can recognize the ancient human brain spreading suspicion based on statistical correlation. It takes work to overcome those thoughts. But it feels great when you can internalize the 4th Amendment to protect your fellow citizen from unwarranted suspicion. It feels courageous and principled. It feels American.
Hogwash on your 95% of African-Americans being law abiding. Why don’t you present a link??? Which would be a nice trick, if you can get around 15% of the black males having served time in prison, and about 1/3 have criminal records.
The problem is, that for every decent black person, you have one or two horribly savage and violent blacks. Taleeb Starkes paints a darker portrait, of 3/4 of black Americans being feral sociopaths, or black with feral sociopathic tendencies.
But by all means, give us a link!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeaky, there’s nothing contradictory about our numbers. 15% of black males having served time at some point in their life is a cumulative statistic. At some point. The number who are engaging in a criminal lifestyle at any given moment is about 1/3 of that.
It’s just overestimating the threat to use a cumulative statistic in assessing instantaneous risk. I agree that having 5% of black Americans thriving at criminal enterprise is shockingly high, and must be dealt with as the highest priority in public policy.
Whatever numbers you prefer, the question remains, how is it just to throw shade on the greater % of black Americans NOT involved in crime based on statistical perceptions? There should be some reward for living a law-abiding life, right? And that reward is to go about your daily activities free of suspicion. I’m not seeing enough Americans sharing this viewpoint.
In other words, you are saying that 95% of black Americans is not committing a crime at this exact second. OK, I can buy that, but I think that is a meaningless number.
Look, life in a black neighborhood is a constant state of crime and violence. That is why so many blacks have iron bars on their windows and doors. That is why you have so many shooting and killings in black neighborhoods. That is why BLM leaders buy homes in white neighborhoods.
So, I hardly think it impolitic or impolite to mention that blacks are criminal a whole lot more than other people.
But, back to statistics, I am betting there is a good chance that you have chosen to live in a white neighborhood, despite the availability of inexpensive housing over in the hood.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
UHHhhh roughly 13% of the population is CREATING up to 50% of the crime. According to FBI stats, now Im not sure how long thier record keeping going to be on the UP & UP, considering thier ACTIONS for the last 10 years but there it IS!
Squeaky, you must have failed math.
How do you get from “about 1/3 [of black men] have criminal records” to “for every decent black person, you have one or two horribly savage and violent blacks”?
You are an extremely racist person. Not only does the criminal record rate not back up your claim, but many criminal records are not for violence (arrests for pot use are an example).
“by all means, give us a link!”
You give US a link showing that 1/2 to 2/3s of all blacks are “horribly savage and violent” (those are the fractions that correspond to your claim). Or you could admit that your pulled it out of thin air because you’re a racist.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170928121641.htm
Plus, see Taleeb Starkes, The Uncivil War. You can get it on Amazon!
Help a black man out and buy his book!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Apparently you need to work on your reading, Squeaky, as well as your math. I said “You give US a link showing that 1/2 to 2/3s of all blacks are “horribly savage and violent” (those are the fractions that correspond to your claim),” and the link you provided that doesn’t show that.
Turley makes a reasonable general point here. However the use of deadly force is used all too often as the first option in these cases. Wielding a knife is not really a reason to use a gun these days unless it involves throwing it and the majority are of cases where people wield a knife don’t use it to throw it.
In the case of the girl attacking another with a knife could have been dealt with a taser more effectively than a gun. As Turley noted in his column shooting a guy with a knife doesn’t always stop a suspect from continuing the attack even after being shot. A taser paralyzes the entire body instantly. How often do police officers really practice using their tasers? Shouldn’t they be more familiar with how those weapons perform just as much as their guns? The accuracy of a police officer with shooting a gun is not really good unless you’re a trained sharp shooter.
Most cops get close enough to use a taser effective in most situations. Policies should be changed to using a taser as a primary resort instead of a gun. A gun should be a last resort.
Wow, Svelaz, do you actually think you know what you talk about?
Clearly not.
Did you even watch the video(s)?
Cop walks up everyone is standing around.
Chick w knife comes bursting on scene w knife and attacks one girl. Officer sees knife and draws his weapon shouting “hey! hey! hey!” while the girl w knife charges after girl in pink jumpsuit.
Note: black male continues the attack on the girl on the ground, kicking her in the head.
You say pull a taser?
What if the taser doesn’t stop her?
She’s already lunging w a knife to attack the girl in pink.
Girl in pink gets stabbed, could die.
Even using lethal force… the chick could have still stabbed and killed the other girl.
Anonymous, “ Even using lethal force… the chick could have still stabbed and killed the other girl.”
You proved my point. Regardless of what was going on. Police officers still had ample opportunity to use tasers instead of guns. They were close on enough to use them. In a chaotic situation like that, using a gun is far more riskier than using a taser.
The need to immediately go to a deadly weapon in such an attack is not always the best option. The girl getting attacked would have been injured or cut, the chance of getting killed by stabbing, especially with a knife that size, is less certain and a taser rigid have been more effective. “What if a taser doesn’t stop her?” A taser still has a better chance to stop an knife attacker more effectively than a gun. Multiple officers using tasers have a greater chance of success than going the more deadly route first. Tasers are uniquely suited for just such situations. You can shoot one from 30 feet away. If you hit a bystander with it the worst that could happen is get shocked rather than killed.
The officers had plenty of opportunity to use a taser. The problem is the problem Policy of using as the first option. Police officers are supposed to be able to judge a situation quickly aren’t they? You know, that training that allows them to make “split second decisions”, right?
There’s been situations where nut jobs with swords being tased instead of being shot.
Keep doubling down on your ignorance.
A knife within 21 feet is as deadly or deadlier than a firearm. Countless studies have shown that an attacker can close that distance and stab you before you can deploy a firearm. The was a textbook case of justified force. Your ludicrous ramblings about this subject reveal you are not much of a thinker and much more of a mouth breather.
Anonymous, you’re hilarious. You think textbook examples really apply to real life scenarios. “ A knife within 21 feet is as deadly or deadlier than a firearm. ” really? Lol!!
You do know that a police officer can still keep moving right? It doesn’t take long to pull a taser or firearm if you are able to move and maintain distance. You’re talking about “the 21 foot rule” or the Tueller drill. You’re not required to remain still or maintain your position within 21 feet or 22 feet or even 23 feet.
An officer can move around too you know. With taser in hand it is still an effective weapon to employ in a knife situation.
“ Countless studies have shown that an attacker can close that distance and stab you before you can deploy a firearm.” LOL! Well duh, it the attacker had a running start long before reaching 21 feet. This girl was attacking someone else, meaning the officer had ample opportunity to use his taser instead of his gun. He was not the target which gave him more options on how to react. The girl wielding the knife still had to contend with another moving target which is the girl in pink. If she managed to cut a hand or arm she would have still survived. A taser could have stopped it just as effectively and without killing her.
Here’s the problem with your “21 foot rule”.
https://www.uslawshield.com/the-dangers-of-the-21-foot-rule/
Svelaz,
No you missed my point completely.
Watch the video at regular speed and again at slow speed multiple times.
Second, had he pulled his taser, assuming he was close enough to use… the girl could have fought thru the shock and still stabbed her.
Lethal force was justified. It was the right call.
Personally I wouldn’t have fired the gun. I would have been afraid of missing the girl and hitting the girl in pink.
But then again, the Pink girl’s family would be suing me because I didn’t shoot.
Yeah, but why not just shoot them??? If Stabby is trying to kill someone at age 16, what do you think she is going to grow up into? Most likely, she would had a couple of illegitimate kids who she would teach to be just as violent as she was.
And what kind of people think that knives are not lethal weapons???
Instead of delving deep into police tactics, why don’t you delve deeply into why so many black kids are sooo violent at a young age??? If you can figger that one out, then there will be less reason for the cops to put them out of our misery for us. In other words, study black violence not police violence. I think it would be a lot more productive.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
All children come into the world with instincts to kick, bite, and pull hair. Children raised properly can learn enough impulse control to counter these innate tendencies via socialization, yet they lurk in the subconscious as default self-defense mechanisms — all it takes is a life-threatening situation to bring them out. I think if you study life in crime-ridden households and ghetto-streets, you’ll find that socialization is working on 95% of the kids, but 5% are called to self-defense at an early age, attacked by violent older children and adults. Dig deeper and you’ll find untreated mental illness, alcoholism and drug-addiction.
The task at hand is rebuilding the black family, and bringing children into a parenting world fully prepared to raise them. Some people think this is a long-term, generation-long process. But, if we had standards of readiness to parent, and were willing to enforce them with birth licensing, we’d find that the world can be remade in 9-months.
Explain the time distance calculation you used to determine the shooting was not called for.
“Most cops get close enough to use a taser effective in most situations. Policies should be changed to using a taser as a primary resort instead of a gun. A gun should be a last resort.”
******************************
Just making stuff up now. Now what is the effective range of a taser without Googling it?
Oh and while you’re opining explain to us the effectiveness of the taser based on the experience of major departments around the country. Discuss optimum range, disabling percentages across ethnic groups and body types, and finish up with a solution about what to do when the mechanism fails (about 15% of the time, oops spoiler alert). All ears here.
Mespo, you know you can find out all of that information yourself right? It’s not difficult. The internet is your friend.
Mespo, the effective range of a taser is 30 feet. The idea of being severely shocked is just as good a deterrent as getting shot.
Wrong, Sevvy, the probes land too far apart to work at 30 feet if they find their mark. Try again. And yes I do know the answer.
“President Biden has long maintained that police officers should shoot armed suspects in the leg.”
Nope, too dangerous. Might hit the femoral artery. Aim for the small toe on the non-dominant foot.
“[P]olice do not need guns ‘in order to break up a knife fight’ . . .”
Besides being mind-numbingly stupid, it was not a “knife fight.” One thug wielded a knife. Her unarmed victim was the target.
Shoot for the leg? The Left is delusional and out of touch with the reality of the street. In a life or death situation most people will shoot to kill as is their right. Expecting cops to be superhuman is just reflective of the ivory tower mentality that living in bubble insures. “Shoot for the leg” is akin to Marie Antoinette’s clueless “let ’em eat cake” remark revealing more about the speaker than the situation at hand. Virtual experience is not real experience and these pampered, protected politicians and analysts deserve the hell of experiencing the life the way the objects of their scorn do – up close, personal and sometimes lethal.
“Shoot for the legs”?
Anyone who says that doesn’t know much about shooting.
Here’s a simple test.
Go to your favorite gun range. Rent a gun (Assuming you don’t own one) and then put a 3″ sticker on the target. (Dirty bird orange works best.)
Now take your time and aim for it.
A trained marksman will hit the 3″ target but will also have shots outside the 3″s.
Now imagine that the 3″ target is moving.
You start to see how silly those comments are.
If you go to 10yrds worse. Forget about hitting the target at 15yrds.
Note: You can, but you’ll start to see the groups growing larger. And that’s a stationary target w time to aim.
Now make it a split second decision.
The Bubble People really are dumb. They think it’s like cartoons where everyone hits every target.
THANK YOU!
You are RIGHT ON!
Unfortunatly those 2 idiots and the 2 before them have nothing else better to do with their time.
“Shoot for the leg” is one of the many evasive tactics by the left. We have children raised like wild animals. Wolves would be better than our foster care system. This knife wielding girl was a foster kid. The black community has lost its family structure and the substitute family, foster care, is horribly broken. No one wants to discuss the core issue. There are bad cops, but the primary problem is lack of family structure. That’s never part of the “frank discussion on race.”
You may never criticize anything a lib does, says or thinks. Truth be damned!
You are right. If there is any “tragedy” in this, it is that a Ma’Khia Bryant probably never knew much beyond violence and savagery since the day she was born. She probably never had a father to read her a bedtime story or anyone to take her to the park to play, or even to fix her a good meal on a regular basis. Probably grew up on Doritos, cold cereal and cheap sodas.
Truth is, over half the black kids in the country need to be taken out of the so-called “home” they are in. But they do not make enough foster parents or social workers . Not in the whole Universe.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky:
It is a tragedy and one that the libs have perpetrated on this community. The fascinating thing is that they face no repercussions for their malevolency. Until we get a truthful discussion of the problem nothing will change. Illegitimacy is a big part of it along with declining morals. escalating violence and outright chaos in the community. The race hustlers continue unrestrained and the cops are hamstrung. The Dims have a lot to answer for.
Ben Crump will pass Elon Musk in wealth soon.
In this case I was left with, was four shots necessary, not no shots were necessary. Statistics are troubling as many Police departments do not cooperate with the feds despite new regulations to do so.
The useful idiot left needs a Bogeyman to advance their agenda. There was President Trump, scapegoating whites now it’s a hard push against police. The problems in black America are black Americans. As a white kid from immigrant parents I was constantly reminded to obey the law, do my homework, obey teachers, be in the house by certain time and stay away from those who choose a trouble path. On Sunday morning we went to 6:00 am mass with my mom and dad as a treat they stopped at the neighborhood bakery and bought us donuts. My parents weren’t the “Cleavers” they had some choice words for each other at times but they ALWAYS kept the family together. Remember when you were told to “go to the police they’re your friend” maybe we need more of that?
Well, discussions like this are kindergarten-ish generally because all the factors of true violence tend to get brushed over, I’m agreed that this is a tough topic to talk over. Agreed that police are in a tough position. And ‘aim for the leg’ actually could prove to be more deadly than is generally realized as bleeding out of the femoral artery is what kills a lot of people whether it be gun shot wound or car accident…
“Even with this close proximity and shooting for the center of the body, some shots apparently missed and hit another officer. Indeed, in the confusion, police thought the wounded officer had been shot by Thompson.”
Glad you pointed out the accuracy issues as they are particularly scary…, at point blank range the stats for accuracy are eye opening — it’s in the range of 50%. Move back a bit, with moving targets (both the shooter and the intended target) and accuracy drops to around 11%. So gunfire is not the finite surgical tool it’s often thought of as being.
But there is no question that police will fire quicker at people of color than white people. To deny this would be hallucinatory. The only way to believe otherwise would be to look through the lens of established bias.
What’s really at issue, tactically speaking is OODA. Military trains it. So do cops. Stands for: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. Truth is, human reaction to traumatic violence breaks down in 2 ways with fight or flight response…, basically humans have about 1.5 seconds to act out their training because at 5 seconds (if they don’t act) they instinctively run for cover. Happens across the board. So on the conscious level with violence in general…, you either enact your training that is now in your subconscious from much repetition or you run. Pretty simple. And it happens really quickly.
And the OODA guidelines are good ones. In fact, we can see with Chauvin in particular, he entered the Floyd murder on ‘decide’, quickly followed by brutal action. His observation and orientation stages were woefully lacking. Points to an interesting scenario which was present in the Wright case as well. These situations had a superior training relative newbies. My guess is that the superior was trying to show ‘how we really do it’ to cut through training scenario ‘red tape’. IOW, the instructors who got aggressive actually thought on some level they were doing good, providing a service of sorts. Add to that their implicit bias and they were no doubt horrified when the situation blew up. Points to a police burnout factor for sure. Also points to the short hand version of response tactics many cops use being insufficient to deal with the true challenges on the ground. Also points out that the militarization of tactics that become so codified post 9-11 are also short on effectiveness in situations that aren’t war time settings. No matter how you look at it, business as usual in respect to policing is *not* working so well. Change is needed. Yes, cops have to really hone in on the Observe and Orient phases much more than they have been. Immediate submission tactics followed by quick gun fire is not a panacea for cops.
Granted one huge contributing factor to where things have gotten has been the effect of active shooters. That is indeed a situation where coming in hot is necessary. Let’s say the Observe and Orient phases are by necessity completely split second. Assessing a situation as a shooter kills more people isn’t efficient certainly. But often it seems in routine police stops with people of color they are treated as if they’re active shooters. Even if you figure in racial profiling, odds are just as great an active shooter falls into the caucasion category. Probably more, haven’t done the finite research, but I’d say caucasions are more likely to walk into a school, mall, church, etc and introduce automatic weaponry to the situation. So once again, implicit bias outweighs statistical reality.
Cops already have the means to navigate this crisis in policing, it’s more a matter of whether they choose to incorporate the appropriate priority points in their response tactics. So far, it’s been clear that writ large they’re having real problems doing this. If nothing else this can bankrupt many towns with resultant lawsuits. But it’s morally and ethically going to spur more group responses to police behavior. Boils down to the mind shift that an occupying military has to go through…, they always have to shift at some point (relatively quickly actually) from counter terrorism to counter insurgency strategy if for no other reason than it produces ‘better results’. That’s where police find themselves right now. Their counter terrorism strategies in dealing with the public are not working like they once did because the public can now respond with footage that reaches the public domain. Times are changing, let’s see what happens. We know how the trump ass eaters will respond…, they get off on police killing the people they hate and will always see it as justified. And trump gave them a voice…, but now it’s time for them to crawl back under the rocks they slithered out from under. Their ball room days are over.
You said, “Well, discussions like this are kindergarten-ish generally because all the factors of true violence tend to get brushed over,”
Boy, do I ever agree. I can’t wait for the discussion on how come black kids and adults are sooo dang violent.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Not surprised that you’re waiting for that discussion.
EB
Aninny:
“But there is no question that police will fire quicker at people of color than white people. To deny this would be hallucinatory. ”
*****************************
To deny it would be factual since your conclusion is just make-up land. In fact, white cops are LESS likely to shoot prospective perps of color as studies show.
As this would be an impossible area of research to isolate since it would be based on how implicit bias, or lack of it, would affect behaviors undertaken inside of 5 seconds I look forward eagerly to your citing it rather than speaking in generality.
EB
Do your own research. I have and my life isn’t about educating the know-nothings.
But for people with genuine interest and no agenda, here’s the article from the — of all places — Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27/this-study-found-race-matters-in-police-shootings-but-the-results-may-surprise-you/
Interesting study, Big Mess. Would be interesting to compare this to actual after action material since people in this study knew it was a study, and simulated. Points to a fascinating reality>> that being what they say versus what they’d really do in real circumstances. Similar to that crew of people that voted for trump in ’16 but wouldn’t admit it in a telephone sampling.
Clearly, I think that in a real adrenaline dump the person of color gets fired on first. But that doesn’t really matter what I think. Or what you think, for that matter. Here’s the question…, you get pulled over on a night with little moonlight, in an area with little streetlights, would you rather be a black person or a white person? Or say you were scrambling in life and found it necessary to sell cigarettes illegaly on the street, would you rather be black or white when the cops arrived? Gut level reaction. I’m curious…
EB
“Here’s the question…, you get pulled over on a night with little moonlight, in an area with little streetlights, would you rather be a black person or a white person? Or say you were scrambling in life and found it necessary to sell cigarettes illegaly on the street, would you rather be black or white when the cops arrived? Gut level reaction. I’m curious…”
**************************
More stupid deflection from the king.
Serious question. And deflection of the highest level on your part. But no answer is an answer, so there’s that.
EB
…based on how implicit bias, or lack of it…
I have been lectured that implicit bias is always present. Implicit.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883
Bug also see my earlier posting.
Talking heads are mouthpieces; they have no clue what they’re talking about. All or most of those blabbing about this are black and their sole focus is race, which makes them racists in the true sense of the word, by the way.
It is hardly surprising that there exists an anti-police bias among the public thanks to Trump and Fox News vilifying the “Deep State.”
HUH????
Semcgowanjr,
The so-called “Deep State” is a Trumpist conspiracy theory which suggests that collusion exists among civil servants and government authority figures in order to control the public.
Said the conspiracy theeorist……………………….
One can always count on you to bring Stupidness to a conversation!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Jeff, the anti-police sentiment started with Michael Brown, the gentle giant, in Ferguson. I don’t think Donald Trump was President then. Nice try.
This would only make sense if it were mainly conservatives objecting to the use of lethal force by police officers.
Let me add some information and suggest a simple tool which might help reduce some police shootings. It is from:
Police Wrongful Shootings Continue Despite Videos – Now a Downloadable Remedy; Free Downloadable Car-Visor Guide Could Keep Teens, Blacks, Others Alive
https://www.valuewalk.com/2019/04/police-wrongful-shootings-continue-despite-videos/
In the majority of questionable wrongful shootings by police of both black and white individuals, the individuals either did not fully comply with police directions and/or took some sudden action which could create concern for officer safety and lead to a shooting.
While this does not in any way excuse or justify shootings which are wrongful, it does suggest that, had the driver and/or passengers acted differently, they might not have been shot.
To help educate and remind all drivers – including those who might be especially concerned because they are young, people of color, or for other reasons – how to act when stopped by police officers so as to minimize any chances of being shot, law professor John Banzhaf, working at the George Washington University Law School, has developed a set of simple and clear guidelines to be clearly displayed in cars.
They are designed to be mounted on both sides of both front-window sun visors where they will be readily visible to the driver and to the front-seat passenger at all times.
Copies of the instructions can be downloaded free – at http://banzhaf.net/carstop.pdf – and then printed on any computer printer before being mounted in the car.
Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf
Uh, nice idea but the problem is that too many blacks do not like to be told “No”, or given any other command by anybody of any color. And, they are unable to conform their actions to societal norms. They are raised in hostile environments by a savage mother-figure, and they learn from an early age to fight at the drop of a hat. It would be like asking a Sardukar soldier “Hey, can’t we just get along???”
I do not think that reading a warning is going to help very many of these people.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“In the majority of questionable wrongful shootings by police of both black and white individuals, the individuals either did not fully comply with police directions and/or took some sudden action which could create concern for officer safety and lead to a shooting.
While this does not in any way excuse or justify shootings which are wrongful, it does suggest that, had the driver and/or passengers acted differently, they might not have been shot.”
**************************************************
Er … Um … that’s exactly what your statistic does, professor, either in the conjunctive or disjunctive. (I love academics! So sensitive, so polite, so reluctant to state the exact truth of their words.) Truth is you have a duty to comply with a lawful order of the police which the vast, vast majority of detentions are. In addition, if you make a “sudden action” you must accept the officer is justified in protecting himself and others. Lives are lost in less than a second — cops and detainees alike — so avoid the stupid and comply. You can fight about it in court.
The most lethal threat is arrogance in the face of overwhelming odds. And its outcome is predictable.
Mespo, JT, Et AL:
Everyone should study Lebron James’ rules for use lethal force & comply. lol
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/04/must-watch-police-officer-posts-hilarious-tiktok-video-mocking-lebron-james/
I witnessed a motorcycle accident yesterday on a remote mountain road. Very few of us had cell service, one motorist did. Several volunteers directed traffic around the scene and other attended to the rider. Then came the EMTs, a fire truck and two police cars. We just had to call 911 and they appeared to help. That is what people expect. Help. The rider was able to stand though he collided with the rail at 45 mph.
The average person is not trained nor capable of fending off armed and violent criminals. They call 911 millions of times per year and help arrives. That is what police do. Unfortunately in a moment of chaos, things happen and seconds can make the difference between life and death. The results can be tragic.
I pray enough people will stand up against the anti police movement or they will find themselves in a situation where the response time is delayed and will have to fend for themselves. Where is the respect for authority? For years, our local police ran PSAs asking people to cooperate during an arrest. The chief said, “Situations will occur where you will disagree with the officer. Cooperate, remain polite and take us to court and let the judge hear your complaint.”
I did such a thing and won my case.
What a tough and thankless job. I am thankful that there remain men and women still willing to serve us and our communities. Can there be improvements? Certainly, and there should be, but that gives no excuse to malign the vast majority of well trained and well meaning officers.
The Democratic talking heads have it all figured out — from the comfort of their studios. None of them know what they’re talking about, but they have to fill air time and cops are the headlines these days thanks to the BLM/Antifa thugs. But when they lump all police shootings together, both the legitimate and the illegitimate, they are doing nothing but fanning the flames of racial tension that the Democrats intentionally want to inflame. The Dems are trying to push a very unpopular agenda through Congress without the help of conservatives, and the only way they can do that is by claiming that their power-grabbing agenda is all about racial justice. It’s not, but keeping the race card front and center means the public will view every action through the prism of race. This is a deliberate Democratic strategy. America doesn’t have a “systemic racism” problem — it has a systemic corruption problem.
Why anyone would want to be a police officer in this environment is beyond me. I would not touch that job unless it paid 150K+ to start. The risk is too great. One wrong move or unfortunate split-second decision and activists are calling for your head on a platter. And the elected officials are only too happy to oblige in most cases.
JT said, ” According to the Washington Post, in 2019, police shot and killed 55 unarmed persons, including 14 Black and 25 white individuals. That does not mean racism is not a serious, long-standing problem in such shootings.”
Sooo, how do you define “racism”??? Is it a police officer “racist” for simply realizing that black people are extremely violent and lack impulse control in much greater numbers than White People???
From above, the Brute in the Bathroom, had a gun in his hoodie and was going for it. Ma’Khia “Stabby-McStabberson” Bryant was trying to knife someone right in front of the police, while her male compadre, Trayvon Jr. was trying to stomp someone’s head again, right in front of the police.
The simple Truth is that black kids are violent and savage, and no less so when they grow up. See Colin Flaherty’s “Don’t Make The Black Kids Angry” and “White Girl Bleed A Lot.”
Look at a typical weekend in Chicago, or Killadelphia, or Baltimore or Detroit.
Expecting a cop to be racially sensitive is about like telling a grunt in Vietnam a few decades back, to not be suspicious of women and children after he has had buddies gunned down by AK47 fire from under a kimono. No, a cop who wants to live had better be constantly prepared for violence from blacks.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“Racism” is an “ism,” which means its a philosophy or belief based on race. It DOES NOT mean what the media and politicians think it means.
Inconceivable!
Or more precisely it’s the practice of race which would literally require we propagate. To engage in race-ism is to reproduce in like racial kind. Regardless of definition it’s evolutionary.
Spit hairs much?