Black teenager with knife killed by Chicago PD

[commando]

Oh really? If cops feel threatened by 3" blade knives at 21' away, well, maybe they shouldn't be cops--it's ridicuous. How about stand behind your car door and talk the guy down, for e.g.? Don't they teach contain tactics at the police academy?

 

I guess since he was such a "threat", that explains the extra 15 shots fired into his dead body. Seriously, any half decent martial artist can disarm a knife wielding assailant, so why don't they teach those cops some martial arts, hand to hand combat skills or something? They also teach in martial arts that you use the appropriate level of retaliation to the level of the threat: that is, if a guy walks up and kicks you in the shin, you don't counter with a tiger claw to the throat. Capisci?

 

IMO, lethal force should never be used unless, for e.g., the guy has a loaded gun and is aiming and/or shooting it at you or he is actively attacking you in close proximity. The young man who was murdered by the cop in this case was not in close proximity nor was he running toward the cop. 10-20 feet away is not an imminent threat. The other cops on the scene did not open fire.

 

So, the bad apple cop, they say, will most likely be charged with 2nd degree murder, which looks like the correct call, IMO.

 

When these few rogue, trigger happy cops stop exercising what they evidently feel is a license to murder unarmed citizens--black citizens, in particular--for traffic or minor offenses, then, and only then, people will stop protesting the police forces around the country. You wouldn't need a "Black Lives Matter" movement.

 

I'm sick and tired of people--and the police uinion--defending or mitigating the actions of rogue cops: they are criminals and should be charged accordingly. Some of these guys have no business being cops. Sheesh, back in the day, the only thing we ever got was Rodney King being kicked on the ground(why they didn't shoot him is anybody's guess) by multiple cops and nowadays, on a weekly basis, it's shoot 1st and ask questions later. Of course, a corpse can't provide any answers.

i am sure you could have got the knife away from him safely.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

[cornographic]

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

[cornographic]

 

Oh really? If cops feel threatened by 3" blade knives at 21' away, well, maybe they shouldn't be cops--it's ridicuous. How about stand behind your car door and talk the guy down, for e.g.? Don't they teach contain tactics at the police academy?

 

I guess since he was such a "threat", that explains the extra 15 shots fired into his dead body. Seriously, any half decent martial artist can disarm a knife wielding assailant, so why don't they teach those cops some martial arts, hand to hand combat skills or something? They also teach in martial arts that you use the appropriate level of retaliation to the level of the threat: that is, if a guy walks up and kicks you in the shin, you don't counter with a tiger claw to the throat. Capisci?

 

IMO, lethal force should never be used unless, for e.g., the guy has a loaded gun and is aiming and/or shooting it at you or he is actively attacking you in close proximity. The young man who was murdered by the cop in this case was not in close proximity nor was he running toward the cop. 10-20 feet away is not an imminent threat. The other cops on the scene did not open fire.

 

So, the bad apple cop, they say, will most likely be charged with 2nd degree murder, which looks like the correct call, IMO.

 

When these few rogue, trigger happy cops stop exercising what they evidently feel is a license to murder unarmed citizens--black citizens, in particular--for traffic or minor offenses, then, and only then, people will stop protesting the police forces around the country. You wouldn't need a "Black Lives Matter" movement.

 

I'm sick and tired of people--and the police uinion--defending or mitigating the actions of rogue cops: they are criminals and should be charged accordingly. Some of these guys have no business being cops. Sheesh, back in the day, the only thing we ever got was Rodney King being kicked on the ground(why they didn't shoot him is anybody's guess) by multiple cops and nowadays, on a weekly basis, it's shoot 1st and ask questions later. Of course, a corpse can't provide any answers.

i am sure you could have got the knife away from him safely.

 

Maybe, I do have some training. Since I'm not a cop, I'd probably just run the other way. But, why don't the the cops just stay by their cars and try and talk the guy down? Surround and contain type thing? I don't think a guy with a knife should end up dead.

[cornographic]

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

[cornographic]

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

[BIGREDIOWAN]

BRI, do you really see the guy veer toward the officer? He's pretty clearly moving left to right to put more distance between him and the vehicle as he walks in that direction, and the most I see is that he straightens out his line for a couple steps and looks over at the officer, and gets shot. I think the defense is going to have a hard time convincing the jury that he made a threatening move or any kind of move actually toward the officer, though continuing to carry a knife when presumably the police were telling him to drop it is very stupid. I will buy that in the dark and from the officer's angle it may have looked different.

 

And for the 21 foot rule, that includes the time to unholster the weapon, right. The cop already has his weapon drawn and pointed. Does the 21 foot rule still apply when you've already got your gun trained on the target? I don't think the 21 foot rule is going to fly with a jury either.

 

It's a tough job, of that I'm certain, but I don't think this cop was fit for it.

I said I seen him veer for a split second or at least change his path, split seconds matter in the real world, maybe not in the internet world as that split second now turns into weeks of discussion of how things could've been done better. Depending on the training you've had and how specific that training is depends on how you see that even in the law enforcement world.

 

I'm not playing games with someone with a knife.

 

I'm not saying he was fit for it, people take my words as twist them around constantly when I try and discuss these things. I wonder if everyone else would enjoy that anytime they would comment on something?

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

[cornographic]

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

Why do you shoot center mass?

[cornographic]

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

The main reason I played the race card here is the fact that the guy unloaded multiple rounds into the body after he was dead. Maybe he's just batsh#t crazy, or both. But, evidently, 1000s of protestors in Chicago thought it may just be race related, so I'm not alone.

[HuskerNBigD]

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

 

 

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

 

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

The main reason I played the race card here is the fact that the guy unloaded multiple rounds into the body after he was dead. Maybe he's just batsh#t crazy, or both.you

id say hes crazy before throwing a racist label on him just to fit an agenda.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

Why do you shoot center mass?

 

Posted about this earlier, maybe read that post and not twist the words and see what you want to see to fit your agenda? That may be helpful.........

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

The main reason I played the race card here is the fact that the guy unloaded multiple rounds into the body after he was dead. Maybe he's just batsh#t crazy, or both. But, evidently, 1000s of protestors in Chicago thought it may just be race related, so I'm not alone.

 

So you made an assumption? Assumptions are what has gotten us as a country to where we are at now in reference to "race wars" that seem to be occurring. So you admit your post was complete B.S.? There's facts and there's assumptions, maybe we should wait until all the facts come on before we jump to conclusions. I realize that's a novel idea in today's world and not popular and maybe this guy is as guilty as everyone thinks he is or maybe he isn't. We just don't know completely yet.