Nosmo King
Gold Member
What then was he defending? He owned no property in Kenosha.
He grabbed his gun and drove to where he could use it on people.
And they call him a patriot. What manner of patriotism is this?
Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!
- Thread starter Jitss617
- Start date
- Status
He grabbed his gun and drove to where he could use it on people.
And they call him a patriot. What manner of patriotism is this?
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,668
- 38,437
- 2,615
Why on Earth would you ask me to show you something I never said??A lot of things are part of the Constitution. We were still talking about the Constitution. Replying "it," as you did, can only rationally be about the Constitution. I accept this as you confessing you're not rational.Which is about the Constitution. That's what we were discussing, the Constitution. You said that about the Constitution ^^^the least you can do is be honest about what I said,,,LOLOLLOLEXACTLY,,,LOLOLliving means it changes naturally through time,,,the constitution requires intentional direct action through many small actions to change it,,,Dumbfuck, if the Constitution wasn't a living document, there would be no amendments.
anything else stupid you want to say???
Dumbfuck, It's a piece of parchment with words on on it. It can't change naturally, it needs people to change it.
and it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,,
Dayum, you're a fucking retard. Yes, the Constitution has been changed with amendments...
Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
[emphasis added to educate the uninformed]
I never said it hasnt happened,,just the the 2nd A hasnt been,,
my god youre dense,,,
You're more retarded than I thought. I was talking about the Constitution being a living document, to which you replied, "it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,," Since I was talking about the Constitution and not the 2nd Amendment, you prove to be a nut who doesn't understand the difference between the Constitution and an amendment.
this is what I said in #3082
living means it changes naturally through time,,,the constitution requires intentional direct action through many small actions to change it,,,
Then I pointed out you're a retard about the Constitution...
Then you responded back saying "it..." -- which can only rationally be about the Constitution since that's what we were talking about.
But now you say you suffered a brain fart and were actually talking about the 2nd Amendment.
the 2nd is part of the constitution,,,
so youre bailing out???
have a nice day,,,
then show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,
Again, I chalk this up to you not being a rational person.
you said their were restrictions,,,so ,,
show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process???
because by definition restrictions violate the text and context of the 2nd A
you obviously are not aware of the facts of the case,,,
please do educate yourself before further comments,,,
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,443
- 81,358
- 2,635
LOL"Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat"Sorry, seems you're too insane to even comprehend that none of that has anything to do with what I've been saying.Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
Why do police shoot so many times?
Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.
To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.
If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris inwww.nola.com
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
Are you really that dense Faun?Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
They shoot multiple times for the same reason with the same exact intention----to immobilize the attacker
You are nasty and ignorant Faun...its a bad bad combination.Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
Why do police shoot so many times?
Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.
To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.
If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
Rules of engagement for self defense for cops is about the same as rules of engagement for the military which are far more striker than rules for engagement for civilians........
Once I explained to you why multiple shots are used by cops to take down a suspect with the other article-----a little common sense should have popped up for you and you should have been able to extrapolate that information and apply it to the civilian world realizing that civilians would also need to take down and make sure an attacker was down and not able to hurt them. But nope I was wrong, you are really really ignorant aren't you. Completely incapable of forming an independent thought on your own.
So here you go, I will treat you like the baby that you are. Brown verses the United States 1921 (don't confuse this case with the board of education Brown ruling)....it established basic rules for killing an attacker justifying if the one being attacked was in fear of their life. The person using the right to self defense in this case shot his attacker who had a knife 4 times killing him (and even though probably one shot would have likely be sufficient to kill him back in those days)......
Brown v. United States (1921) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person is attacked, and that person reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury, he has no duty to retreat and may stand his ground and, if he kills his attacker, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense.
Background[edit]
Brown, the petitioner, and Hermes, the individual killed, had a previous history. Evidence indicated that Hermes had used a knife to assault Brown on two prior occasions and that Hermes threatened that the next time one of them would be taken away in a black box. Given this history, Brown took a handgun with him while supervising excavation work for a post office and put it nearby. Hermes arrived and, according to Brown, came at him with a knife. Brown retreated approximately twenty to twenty-five feet to where he left the pistol and, with Hermes striking at Brown, fired four shots, killing Hermes.[1][2]
A jury convicted Brown of second degree murder after being instructed by the court that, when considering self-defense, the individual assaulted has a duty to retreat as long as retreat is open to him and would not be dangerous to his person.[3]
Decision[edit]
On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the lower court's conviction holding “that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceed the bounds of lawful self-defense.” In writing the opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.” [2]
In reviewing the lower court's decision, Justice Holmes noted that there was evidence that Brown fired his last shot after Hermes went down. Brown testified in the lower court that this was an accidental discharge. The Court determined that a person need not lose a self-defense claim if a last shot followed closely to the others during the heat of conflict and if a person believed that he was fighting for his life.[2]
Justices Clarke and Pitney dissented without writing an opinion.[4]"
You're completely fucking insane.
Yes Faun you lost the argument--Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat so yes Faun, Kyle shooting the Pedo 3 or 4 times was all perfectly legal-------------and trying the childish insults isn't going to save you.
....You wanted proof people/cops are allowed to shoot attackers more than once and I gave you that in an article on why cops are trained to multi shoot criminal attackers. Then you started screaming that you wanted a law showing that civilians had a right to self protect themselves and shoot criminals more than once as well to stop an attack, but when I had other things to do and couldn't respond immediately and tell you to act like an adult and go google for yourself, you again start with these stupid insults thinking this means you won an argument....now that you just got your azz handed to you with the 1921 law for the right to self protection specifically siting that the case that this law was made for was the direct result of the would be victim shooting his attacker 4 TIMES---you go off on these stupid child smears again. All you had to do to not embarrass yourself was google like I told you to do for yourself earlier. It really isn't that hard to google court cases involving regarding the Right to Self Protection.
Yes, that could be self defense. All you keep doing is showing you have not a fucking clue what I said.
How many more times are you going to demonstrate you're insane?
me thinks the problem is YOU dont know what you said,,,
As if you "think."
Moron, what I said is self defense with a firearm is a legal option for some to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, regardless of how many shots that takes. But if the person claiming self defense happened to use excessive force beyond merely stopping the threat by continuing to shoot their victim after they've neutralized the threat, it shifts from being self defense to either murder or attempted murder, depending on the condition of their victim.
The Turtlesoup nut keeps repeating how shooting someone multiple times to stop a threat is self defense, which it is, and which I've said it is. She keeps repeating that nonsense because she truly is batshit insane.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,443
- 81,358
- 2,635
So you're admitting you were full of shit when you said there are restrictions?
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,668
- 38,437
- 2,615
LOL"Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat"Sorry, seems you're too insane to even comprehend that none of that has anything to do with what I've been saying.Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
Why do police shoot so many times?
Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.
To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.
If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
Are you really that dense Faun?Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
They shoot multiple times for the same reason with the same exact intention----to immobilize the attacker
You are nasty and ignorant Faun...its a bad bad combination.Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
Why do police shoot so many times?
Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.
To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.
If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
Rules of engagement for self defense for cops is about the same as rules of engagement for the military which are far more striker than rules for engagement for civilians........
Once I explained to you why multiple shots are used by cops to take down a suspect with the other article-----a little common sense should have popped up for you and you should have been able to extrapolate that information and apply it to the civilian world realizing that civilians would also need to take down and make sure an attacker was down and not able to hurt them. But nope I was wrong, you are really really ignorant aren't you. Completely incapable of forming an independent thought on your own.
So here you go, I will treat you like the baby that you are. Brown verses the United States 1921 (don't confuse this case with the board of education Brown ruling)....it established basic rules for killing an attacker justifying if the one being attacked was in fear of their life. The person using the right to self defense in this case shot his attacker who had a knife 4 times killing him (and even though probably one shot would have likely be sufficient to kill him back in those days)......
Brown v. United States (1921) - Wikipedia
"Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person is attacked, and that person reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury, he has no duty to retreat and may stand his ground and, if he kills his attacker, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense.
Background[edit]
Brown, the petitioner, and Hermes, the individual killed, had a previous history. Evidence indicated that Hermes had used a knife to assault Brown on two prior occasions and that Hermes threatened that the next time one of them would be taken away in a black box. Given this history, Brown took a handgun with him while supervising excavation work for a post office and put it nearby. Hermes arrived and, according to Brown, came at him with a knife. Brown retreated approximately twenty to twenty-five feet to where he left the pistol and, with Hermes striking at Brown, fired four shots, killing Hermes.[1][2]
A jury convicted Brown of second degree murder after being instructed by the court that, when considering self-defense, the individual assaulted has a duty to retreat as long as retreat is open to him and would not be dangerous to his person.[3]
Decision[edit]
On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the lower court's conviction holding “that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceed the bounds of lawful self-defense.” In writing the opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.” [2]
In reviewing the lower court's decision, Justice Holmes noted that there was evidence that Brown fired his last shot after Hermes went down. Brown testified in the lower court that this was an accidental discharge. The Court determined that a person need not lose a self-defense claim if a last shot followed closely to the others during the heat of conflict and if a person believed that he was fighting for his life.[2]
Justices Clarke and Pitney dissented without writing an opinion.[4]"
You're completely fucking insane.
Yes Faun you lost the argument--Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat so yes Faun, Kyle shooting the Pedo 3 or 4 times was all perfectly legal-------------and trying the childish insults isn't going to save you.
....You wanted proof people/cops are allowed to shoot attackers more than once and I gave you that in an article on why cops are trained to multi shoot criminal attackers. Then you started screaming that you wanted a law showing that civilians had a right to self protect themselves and shoot criminals more than once as well to stop an attack, but when I had other things to do and couldn't respond immediately and tell you to act like an adult and go google for yourself, you again start with these stupid insults thinking this means you won an argument....now that you just got your azz handed to you with the 1921 law for the right to self protection specifically siting that the case that this law was made for was the direct result of the would be victim shooting his attacker 4 TIMES---you go off on these stupid child smears again. All you had to do to not embarrass yourself was google like I told you to do for yourself earlier. It really isn't that hard to google court cases involving regarding the Right to Self Protection.
Yes, that could be self defense. All you keep doing is showing you have not a fucking clue what I said.
How many more times are you going to demonstrate you're insane?
me thinks the problem is YOU dont know what you said,,,
As if you "think."
Moron, what I said is self defense with a firearm is a legal option for some to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, regardless of how many shots that takes. But if the person claiming self defense happened to use excessive force beyond merely stopping the threat by continuing to shoot their victim after they've neutralized the threat, it shifts from being self defense to either murder or attempted murder, depending on the condition of their victim.
The Turtlesoup nut keeps repeating how shooting someone multiple times to stop a threat is self defense, which it is, and which I've said it is. She keeps repeating that nonsense because she truly is batshit insane.
tell me how many seconds between kyles shots??
my count is all shots happened withing 2 seconds,,,
next time people are chasing you to kill you how you would regulate your shots to avoid crazy people from airchair quarterbacking you on the internet..
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,668
- 38,437
- 2,615
HUH???
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,443
- 81,358
- 2,635
The Constitution says you have to be 18 to vote. It offers no such restrictions on bearing arms. And you idiotically claimed is says there can't be restrictions.
Are you ever not a fucking moron?
Ever??
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,443
- 81,358
- 2,635
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,668
- 38,437
- 2,615
look up the definition of "infringed",,,
it specifically says restrictions,,,
so again,,
show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,443
- 81,358
- 2,635
How many seconds it takes is irrelevant.LOL"Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat"Sorry, seems you're too insane to even comprehend that none of that has anything to do with what I've been saying.Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
Why do police shoot so many times?
Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.
To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.
If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
Are you really that dense Faun?Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
They shoot multiple times for the same reason with the same exact intention----to immobilize the attacker
You are nasty and ignorant Faun...its a bad bad combination.Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
Why do police shoot so many times?
Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.
To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.
If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
Rules of engagement for self defense for cops is about the same as rules of engagement for the military which are far more striker than rules for engagement for civilians........
Once I explained to you why multiple shots are used by cops to take down a suspect with the other article-----a little common sense should have popped up for you and you should have been able to extrapolate that information and apply it to the civilian world realizing that civilians would also need to take down and make sure an attacker was down and not able to hurt them. But nope I was wrong, you are really really ignorant aren't you. Completely incapable of forming an independent thought on your own.
So here you go, I will treat you like the baby that you are. Brown verses the United States 1921 (don't confuse this case with the board of education Brown ruling)....it established basic rules for killing an attacker justifying if the one being attacked was in fear of their life. The person using the right to self defense in this case shot his attacker who had a knife 4 times killing him (and even though probably one shot would have likely be sufficient to kill him back in those days)......
Brown v. United States (1921) - Wikipedia
"Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person is attacked, and that person reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury, he has no duty to retreat and may stand his ground and, if he kills his attacker, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense.
Background[edit]
Brown, the petitioner, and Hermes, the individual killed, had a previous history. Evidence indicated that Hermes had used a knife to assault Brown on two prior occasions and that Hermes threatened that the next time one of them would be taken away in a black box. Given this history, Brown took a handgun with him while supervising excavation work for a post office and put it nearby. Hermes arrived and, according to Brown, came at him with a knife. Brown retreated approximately twenty to twenty-five feet to where he left the pistol and, with Hermes striking at Brown, fired four shots, killing Hermes.[1][2]
A jury convicted Brown of second degree murder after being instructed by the court that, when considering self-defense, the individual assaulted has a duty to retreat as long as retreat is open to him and would not be dangerous to his person.[3]
Decision[edit]
On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the lower court's conviction holding “that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceed the bounds of lawful self-defense.” In writing the opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.” [2]
In reviewing the lower court's decision, Justice Holmes noted that there was evidence that Brown fired his last shot after Hermes went down. Brown testified in the lower court that this was an accidental discharge. The Court determined that a person need not lose a self-defense claim if a last shot followed closely to the others during the heat of conflict and if a person believed that he was fighting for his life.[2]
Justices Clarke and Pitney dissented without writing an opinion.[4]"
You're completely fucking insane.
Yes Faun you lost the argument--Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat so yes Faun, Kyle shooting the Pedo 3 or 4 times was all perfectly legal-------------and trying the childish insults isn't going to save you.
....You wanted proof people/cops are allowed to shoot attackers more than once and I gave you that in an article on why cops are trained to multi shoot criminal attackers. Then you started screaming that you wanted a law showing that civilians had a right to self protect themselves and shoot criminals more than once as well to stop an attack, but when I had other things to do and couldn't respond immediately and tell you to act like an adult and go google for yourself, you again start with these stupid insults thinking this means you won an argument....now that you just got your azz handed to you with the 1921 law for the right to self protection specifically siting that the case that this law was made for was the direct result of the would be victim shooting his attacker 4 TIMES---you go off on these stupid child smears again. All you had to do to not embarrass yourself was google like I told you to do for yourself earlier. It really isn't that hard to google court cases involving regarding the Right to Self Protection.
Yes, that could be self defense. All you keep doing is showing you have not a fucking clue what I said.
How many more times are you going to demonstrate you're insane?
me thinks the problem is YOU dont know what you said,,,
As if you "think."
Moron, what I said is self defense with a firearm is a legal option for some to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, regardless of how many shots that takes. But if the person claiming self defense happened to use excessive force beyond merely stopping the threat by continuing to shoot their victim after they've neutralized the threat, it shifts from being self defense to either murder or attempted murder, depending on the condition of their victim.
The Turtlesoup nut keeps repeating how shooting someone multiple times to stop a threat is self defense, which it is, and which I've said it is. She keeps repeating that nonsense because she truly is batshit insane.
tell me how many seconds between kyles shots??
my count is all shots happened withing 2 seconds,,,
next time people are chasing you to kill you how you would regulate your shots to avoid crazy people from airchair quarterbacking you on the internet..
Have you always been this stupid?
Again, it's about excessive force. That can take 2 seconds; that can take 10 seconds. It's about continuing to shoot even after the threat is neutralized. It matters not how long that takes.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,443
- 81,358
- 2,635
LOL
Now you admit you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. No worries -- I already knew that.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,443
- 81,358
- 2,635
It never needed to be changed or repealed. It always allowed for restrictions.
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,668
- 38,437
- 2,615
How many seconds it takes is irrelevant.LOL"Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat"Sorry, seems you're too insane to even comprehend that none of that has anything to do with what I've been saying.Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
Why do police shoot so many times?
Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.
To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.
If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
Are you really that dense Faun?Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
They shoot multiple times for the same reason with the same exact intention----to immobilize the attacker
You are nasty and ignorant Faun...its a bad bad combination.Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
Why do police shoot so many times?
Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.
To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.
If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
Rules of engagement for self defense for cops is about the same as rules of engagement for the military which are far more striker than rules for engagement for civilians........
Once I explained to you why multiple shots are used by cops to take down a suspect with the other article-----a little common sense should have popped up for you and you should have been able to extrapolate that information and apply it to the civilian world realizing that civilians would also need to take down and make sure an attacker was down and not able to hurt them. But nope I was wrong, you are really really ignorant aren't you. Completely incapable of forming an independent thought on your own.
So here you go, I will treat you like the baby that you are. Brown verses the United States 1921 (don't confuse this case with the board of education Brown ruling)....it established basic rules for killing an attacker justifying if the one being attacked was in fear of their life. The person using the right to self defense in this case shot his attacker who had a knife 4 times killing him (and even though probably one shot would have likely be sufficient to kill him back in those days)......
Brown v. United States (1921) - Wikipedia
"Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person is attacked, and that person reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury, he has no duty to retreat and may stand his ground and, if he kills his attacker, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense.
Background[edit]
Brown, the petitioner, and Hermes, the individual killed, had a previous history. Evidence indicated that Hermes had used a knife to assault Brown on two prior occasions and that Hermes threatened that the next time one of them would be taken away in a black box. Given this history, Brown took a handgun with him while supervising excavation work for a post office and put it nearby. Hermes arrived and, according to Brown, came at him with a knife. Brown retreated approximately twenty to twenty-five feet to where he left the pistol and, with Hermes striking at Brown, fired four shots, killing Hermes.[1][2]
A jury convicted Brown of second degree murder after being instructed by the court that, when considering self-defense, the individual assaulted has a duty to retreat as long as retreat is open to him and would not be dangerous to his person.[3]
Decision[edit]
On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the lower court's conviction holding “that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceed the bounds of lawful self-defense.” In writing the opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.” [2]
In reviewing the lower court's decision, Justice Holmes noted that there was evidence that Brown fired his last shot after Hermes went down. Brown testified in the lower court that this was an accidental discharge. The Court determined that a person need not lose a self-defense claim if a last shot followed closely to the others during the heat of conflict and if a person believed that he was fighting for his life.[2]
Justices Clarke and Pitney dissented without writing an opinion.[4]"
You're completely fucking insane.
Yes Faun you lost the argument--Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat so yes Faun, Kyle shooting the Pedo 3 or 4 times was all perfectly legal-------------and trying the childish insults isn't going to save you.
....You wanted proof people/cops are allowed to shoot attackers more than once and I gave you that in an article on why cops are trained to multi shoot criminal attackers. Then you started screaming that you wanted a law showing that civilians had a right to self protect themselves and shoot criminals more than once as well to stop an attack, but when I had other things to do and couldn't respond immediately and tell you to act like an adult and go google for yourself, you again start with these stupid insults thinking this means you won an argument....now that you just got your azz handed to you with the 1921 law for the right to self protection specifically siting that the case that this law was made for was the direct result of the would be victim shooting his attacker 4 TIMES---you go off on these stupid child smears again. All you had to do to not embarrass yourself was google like I told you to do for yourself earlier. It really isn't that hard to google court cases involving regarding the Right to Self Protection.
Yes, that could be self defense. All you keep doing is showing you have not a fucking clue what I said.
How many more times are you going to demonstrate you're insane?
me thinks the problem is YOU dont know what you said,,,
As if you "think."
Moron, what I said is self defense with a firearm is a legal option for some to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, regardless of how many shots that takes. But if the person claiming self defense happened to use excessive force beyond merely stopping the threat by continuing to shoot their victim after they've neutralized the threat, it shifts from being self defense to either murder or attempted murder, depending on the condition of their victim.
The Turtlesoup nut keeps repeating how shooting someone multiple times to stop a threat is self defense, which it is, and which I've said it is. She keeps repeating that nonsense because she truly is batshit insane.
tell me how many seconds between kyles shots??
my count is all shots happened withing 2 seconds,,,
next time people are chasing you to kill you how you would regulate your shots to avoid crazy people from airchair quarterbacking you on the internet..
Have you always been this stupid?
Again, it's about excessive force. That can take 2 seconds; that can take 10 seconds. It's about continuing to shoot even after the threat is neutralized. It matters not how long that takes.
thanks for your opinion,,,
see you in court,,,
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,668
- 38,437
- 2,615
show me proof of that,,cause for 150 yrs there were none,,,
- Banned
- #3,175
Well, I hope so....No, it's under the table.You have got to be getting paid to keep spouting this much stupidity for this long......"Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat"Sorry, seems you're too insane to even comprehend that none of that has anything to do with what I've been saying.Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
Why do police shoot so many times?
Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.
To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.
If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
Are you really that dense Faun?Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
They shoot multiple times for the same reason with the same exact intention----to immobilize the attacker
You are nasty and ignorant Faun...its a bad bad combination.Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.Cite the case.....If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....That
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.
I know you can't.
Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.
What did the idiot just say that I did?
Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.
I never said anything about excessive force idiot.
I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.
Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,
People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.
This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.
I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.
YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting
And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.
Why do police shoot so many times?
Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.
To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.
If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.
To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."
Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.
Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.
Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings
Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in
NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.
From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...
That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.
Rules of engagement for self defense for cops is about the same as rules of engagement for the military which are far more striker than rules for engagement for civilians........
Once I explained to you why multiple shots are used by cops to take down a suspect with the other article-----a little common sense should have popped up for you and you should have been able to extrapolate that information and apply it to the civilian world realizing that civilians would also need to take down and make sure an attacker was down and not able to hurt them. But nope I was wrong, you are really really ignorant aren't you. Completely incapable of forming an independent thought on your own.
So here you go, I will treat you like the baby that you are. Brown verses the United States 1921 (don't confuse this case with the board of education Brown ruling)....it established basic rules for killing an attacker justifying if the one being attacked was in fear of their life. The person using the right to self defense in this case shot his attacker who had a knife 4 times killing him (and even though probably one shot would have likely be sufficient to kill him back in those days)......
Brown v. United States (1921) - Wikipedia
"Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person is attacked, and that person reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury, he has no duty to retreat and may stand his ground and, if he kills his attacker, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense.
Background[edit]
Brown, the petitioner, and Hermes, the individual killed, had a previous history. Evidence indicated that Hermes had used a knife to assault Brown on two prior occasions and that Hermes threatened that the next time one of them would be taken away in a black box. Given this history, Brown took a handgun with him while supervising excavation work for a post office and put it nearby. Hermes arrived and, according to Brown, came at him with a knife. Brown retreated approximately twenty to twenty-five feet to where he left the pistol and, with Hermes striking at Brown, fired four shots, killing Hermes.[1][2]
A jury convicted Brown of second degree murder after being instructed by the court that, when considering self-defense, the individual assaulted has a duty to retreat as long as retreat is open to him and would not be dangerous to his person.[3]
Decision[edit]
On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the lower court's conviction holding “that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceed the bounds of lawful self-defense.” In writing the opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.” [2]
In reviewing the lower court's decision, Justice Holmes noted that there was evidence that Brown fired his last shot after Hermes went down. Brown testified in the lower court that this was an accidental discharge. The Court determined that a person need not lose a self-defense claim if a last shot followed closely to the others during the heat of conflict and if a person believed that he was fighting for his life.[2]
Justices Clarke and Pitney dissented without writing an opinion.[4]"
You're completely fucking insane.
Yes Faun you lost the argument--Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat so yes Faun, Kyle shooting the Pedo 3 or 4 times was all perfectly legal-------------and trying the childish insults isn't going to save you.
....You wanted proof people/cops are allowed to shoot attackers more than once and I gave you that in an article on why cops are trained to multi shoot criminal attackers. Then you started screaming that you wanted a law showing that civilians had a right to self protect themselves and shoot criminals more than once as well to stop an attack, but when I had other things to do and couldn't respond immediately and tell you to act like an adult and go google for yourself, you again start with these stupid insults thinking this means you won an argument....now that you just got your azz handed to you with the 1921 law for the right to self protection specifically siting that the case that this law was made for was the direct result of the would be victim shooting his attacker 4 TIMES---you go off on these stupid child smears again. All you had to do to not embarrass yourself was google like I told you to do for yourself earlier. It really isn't that hard to google court cases involving regarding the Right to Self Protection.
Yes, that could be self defense. All you keep doing is showing you have not a fucking clue what I said.
How many more times are you going to demonstrate you're insane?
Over a hundred pages of completely ridiculous assertions, smears, and just plain bullshit...... do you pay taxes on this income?
Taxation is theft.
- Banned
- #3,176
No, it absolutely does not.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,443
- 81,358
- 2,635
That's a ridiculous request since lack of legislation is not evidence of lack of restrictions. Restrictions have been placed at the legislative level, challenged and upheld.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,443
- 81,358
- 2,635
The Supreme Court says otherwise. I know this may shock you, but I accept their decisions over yours.
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,668
- 38,437
- 2,615
so I'm right and youre wrong,,,
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,668
- 38,437
- 2,615
I'll remember you said that..
- Status
Similar threads
