ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 17th September 2017, 11:07 PM   #1
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,556
Student shot by campus police

***WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS LINKs TO VIDEOS THAT MAY BE DISTURBING***

Apparently the president of Georgia Tech's Pride Alliance, Scout Schultz, was shot by campus police after they approached them in a threatening manner, allegedly wielding a knife.

The police kept extorting them to drop the knife, while Schultz apparently kept shouting "Shoot me!" before one of the police officers did so.

I'm not sure of the context of this situation; allegedly there was a call to campus police about "a person with a gun and a knife", and when they arrived, Schultz refused to comply with the demands of police and was carrying a knife. What sparked this is unknown at the moment; Schultz was, from the first video, alone with no one else around. I could not see a knife, but the angle was poor and it could have been in their other hand, since it was shot from a significant distance. I could not view the second video, but in the still photo available in the article, there is an object on the ground to the right of the body that appears to be a weapon of some kind, although again the quality is poor.

I just think it's a damn shame that Schultz had to be shot in the first place, and my major question is, why did the officer not simply shoot to wound? Why go for the kill shot? I'm not questioning that the officer felt threatened; that much is clear from the one video I was able to view, with the way Schultz kept advancing toward them despite clear directions from the police. I'm not going to speculate on the reasons why Schultz felt the need to do this either; there simply isn't enough information available to make it worthwhile, but I have to admit, I am very much afraid that rabid extremists are going to latch on to this as their cause-du-jour without bothering to find out any of the background information. The Buzzfeed article linked above does seem to make it fairly clear that Schultz was threatening the officers for some reason, but I think there's a significant likelihood that we'll start seeing this spark more protests against the police, who from what I can tell, were more or less in the right in this case (although again, I do wonder why the kill shot was the initial response rather than wounding, especially if all Schultz had was a knife).
__________________
"All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: Freedom, Justice, Honor, Duty, Mercy, Hope."-Winston Churchill
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do"-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 11:19 PM   #2
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,803
They are taught to shoot to kill if you need to shoot. It's a shame they didn't try to taze him. I understand (assuming the guy had a knife), it's not as bad as those shootings where the guy was doing what the cops told them to do. But it still seems unnecessary.

I also agree, if you can taze someone, why can't you shoot the guy in the leg or something.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 11:49 PM   #3
Graham2001
Graduate Poster
 
Graham2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,140
I agree, the first option in cases like this should be tazers or pepper spray if those are available, which it would appear they were not in this case.

As to aiming at the center of mass, that's standard training, simply because it's the easiest part of the body to aim for, while you are more likely to seriously injure or kill the person being shot at, you're also more likely to hit what you aim at, rather than something or someone else. Shooting at extremities (Hands, limbs) means there is a much higher risk of the bullet going somewhere other than the intended target.

As to people saying that the officers should have shot the knife out of the hands of the person carrying it, that only works reliably in films.
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!"
'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail

Everybody gets it wrong sometimes...
Graham2001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 04:44 AM   #4
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 12,071
These are difficult situations because you can't tell if this is a "suicide by cop" or an aggressive attack.
Police officers from their academy days are constantly impressed with the "21 foot rule" and the "Tueller drill" which strongly maintains that a potential attacker with a knife can close the distance successfully before the officer can draw and fire.

This is essentially part of police culture, and has resulted, IMO, in an unreasonable fear of knife-armed individuals.
Note that the maximum range of the Taser is normally 15 feet (longer wires are available) and that's too close. Optimal range is only 9-12 feet, due to the divergence of the darts.

Pepper spray is problematic at longer ranges as well; depending on type it can become too diffuse or even not make it that far.

As noted above, "shooting to wound" is TV fantasy. It's much harder to hit limbs than "center mass" and hits there may be deadly anyway; severing the femoral artery is often fatal.
The firearm is deadly force and if it's use is justified then one does so to eliminate the threat.
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 04:51 AM   #5
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,643
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
I just think it's a damn shame that Schultz had to be shot in the first place, and my major question is, why did the officer not simply shoot to wound? Why go for the kill shot?
I can't believe you are asking this question after ten years on this forum. Every time a bloke winds up shot, justifiably or not, people ask this question and the answer is always the same.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
They are taught to shoot to kill if you need to shoot. It's a shame they didn't try to taze him. I understand (assuming the guy had a knife), it's not as bad as those shootings where the guy was doing what the cops told them to do. But it still seems unnecessary.

I also agree, if you can taze someone, why can't you shoot the guy in the leg or something.
For ****'s sake, you too?

Hasn't it been made amply clear that you can't reliably shoot someone in the limbs or shoot to "wound"? Even shooting at the center of mass, which is what they are trained to do and the most reliable way to hit someone, trained cops usually miss. Not to mention that, unlike in the movies, shooting someone in the shoulder or thigh can be very deadly as well.

Gee, it's like people forget all this stuff every time it's brought up.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか


Last edited by Argumemnon; 18th September 2017 at 04:54 AM.
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 04:59 AM   #6
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,883
Right.
Could you imagine if they had a "Shoot to wound" policy, and they missed toward an artery, or a vital organ? It would be lawsuit after lawsuit.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 05:16 AM   #7
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,773
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
why can't you shoot the guy in the leg or something.
And, as any nurse can tell you, there are no major arteries in the legs.
Giz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 05:34 AM   #8
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,338
I remember when the LAPD fired over 100 rounds from close range at a small pickup truck containing two ladies delivering newspapers, and did not kill the two ladies. IIRC, they only hit one of the ladies with two rounds.

There were numerous bullet holes in the trees and houses around the area.

Neither the truck nor the ladies looked anything at all like the suspect or the vehicle they were looking for.

In the Diallo case, NYPD fired 41 rounds to kill Diallo from close range. While they did hit him 19 times, they missed hem 22 times.

So I'm thinking that expecting them to "wing" a suspect is one hell of a stretch.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 05:47 AM   #9
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,326
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I remember when the LAPD fired over 100 rounds from close range at a small pickup truck containing two ladies delivering newspapers, and did not kill the two ladies. IIRC, they only hit one of the ladies with two rounds.

There were numerous bullet holes in the trees and houses around the area.

Neither the truck nor the ladies looked anything at all like the suspect or the vehicle they were looking for.
At least that shooting was per protocol and not in anyway a crime.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 06:41 AM   #10
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,064
Looks to me from limited information that the suspect didn't give the police any choice here.

For already stated reasons, police don't shoot to wound. They shoot to incapacitate a target, and they aim for center mass, offering the best chance to hit, which means the least chance to miss and hit someone else.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 06:56 AM   #11
Barber Shop
Critical Thinker
 
Barber Shop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 316
You can usually tell who has not had any experience with firearms when they bring up this fantasy scenario of shooting-to-wound.
__________________
"Berkeley Campus on Lockdown After Loose Pages of Wall Street Journal Found on Park Bench

http://www.theonion.com/article/berk...-wall-st-55815
Barber Shop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 06:57 AM   #12
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,489
I feel like any veteran of this board who asks about "shoot to wound" has to be trolling.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 06:58 AM   #13
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,489
Originally Posted by Barber Shop View Post
You can usually tell who has not had any experience with firearms when they bring up this fantasy scenario of shooting-to-wound.
I'm pretty sure Sabrina is ex military. Security or Intel officer, IIRC.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 07:24 AM   #14
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,826
Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
Note that the maximum range of the Taser is normally 15 feet (longer wires are available) and that's too close. Optimal range is only 9-12 feet, due to the divergence of the darts.
To add to this - tasers are nowhere near as effective as portrayed in movies and TV.

One can find any number of videos of people being tasered without falling down or being incapacitated in any way. I've provided one such video in this forum several times already. Tasers are really unpleasant to be hit with, and they frequently work well enough - but not nearly as reliably as people seem to think. Even if both barbs get through the clothing, its just not that incapacitating to many people, just moving around is usually enough to dislodge one or both of the barbs, which means no more shocks.

Last edited by crescent; 18th September 2017 at 07:58 AM.
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 07:48 AM   #15
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
Posts: 6,882
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm pretty sure Sabrina is ex military. Security or Intel officer, IIRC.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
So? There's a difference between shooting on a target range and shooting in a police-type simulator. Moreover, any handgun experience at all is (or should be) enough to teach you how difficult it is to hit even the largest, closest, static target. Throw in adrenaline, movement, nerves, and a perceived threat from the target, and you're doing well to come even close.

This signature is intended to irritate people.
__________________
I don't care what you do to the women and children,
leave me alone!
Beady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 08:46 AM   #16
Abooga
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 705
Perhaps Czech people donīt have arteries in their legs?
https://www.policeone.com/use-of-for...kill-everyone/

“So tell me again about shooting in the legs?”

“Oh, I forgot, you are an American. You kill everyone!”

I thought to myself, “Whoa, hold on there Skippy, you’ve got to be kidding me — we kill everyone?!”

I guess he could read the incredulous look on my face because he said, “Look, I’ve been to the U.S. I’ve trained there. You teach all shots go to center mass followed by a head shot.”

“Yeah, but…” I said, my mind racing for an intelligent response. “There are reasons why we shoot at those locations.”

I began by telling him about deadly force in the United States. I was sure he had missed this part of his classroom instruction — perhaps it was the language barrier, I didn’t know — so I was going defend our method of using deadly force and outline the reasons why we only shot center mass.

I spoke rapidly, trying to outline our entire concept of police use of force. I told him that it was the largest target area of the body and the easiest to hit. I felt like I needed a chalkboard, some chalk. I wanted to draw pictures and graphs, use arrows and lines, and write smart-sounding definitions. I wanted to ‘wow’ him with my deep understanding of this issue and make him take back that last statement. I was, after all, the ‘expert’ they’d invited in from a foreign country. Besides, I couldn’t just let it go.

“We don’t shoot to kill,” I said. “We shoot to stop.”

He nodded and said, “Yeah, but that’s where your vitals are and a shot there would likely kill you.”

His arrogance was remarkable. I told him that it was our job to stop a subject, and the chest was the best area for doing that.

“Have you ever been shot in the leg?” He asked.

“Um, No.”

“Well, that will stop you — it is very painful.”

Now he was really getting under my skin.

“OK,” I said, “but surely your officers under stress are not going to demonstrate the marksmanship qualities they have on the range.” How in the world do you expect them to hit a skinny leg in motion?”

I had him this time.

“Here in the Czech Republic, most of our shootings occur in very close distance, two to three meters?” he retorted.

“Yeah,” I said without thinking, “It’s pretty much the same for us.”

Wrinkling his face, he replied, “You don’t think you can hit a leg at a distance of three to six feet?”

I reeled back — this guy was pissing me off.

“Okay,” I said, “but what if the round passes through? What about the round striking an innocent person who happened to be on the other side of the target?” Now I had him against the ropes, surely these cops are mindful of the dynamic environment in which law enforcement plays out.

Again, he responded without hesitation. “That’s another reason why we aim to the legs. At the distance we usually fire — remember, two to three meters — the bullet has a trajectory towards the ground of only a few feet. A pass through is rare — we use hollow point bullets — but if it does occur, it is not likely to travel much farther.”

He paused, and continued, “You see Roy, here in the Czech Republic we don’t always shoot to kill. Sometimes we shoot to stop — it’s our non lethal shooting.”

I countered, “Non-lethal shots… huh? C’mon, You know, there is probably not a single square inch on the body that is not packed with veins, arteries, or major group of blood rich capillaries that once shot will cause the subject to bleed out.”

As soon as I spoke I realized was now becoming indignant and desperate.

“Yes sir, there is always that possibility, but with medical technology today it is rare that a non-vital shot will ever result in death.”

I thought back to something I heard in the academy years ago. It was meant to be inspirational, but had also become a statistical fact in countries with modern emergency services.

“If you are shot, and you know you are shot, you will probably survive the wound.”

I’ve repeated this many times in the classroom but never had I considered it from the other guy’s perspective. It would be true that if a bad guy was shot and he knew he was shot, he too would likely survive the wound. I guessed that most cops — if forced to take a round in a gunfight — would also rather be shot in the leg than in the heart or head, based solely on the probability of survival. It was intuitive and didn’t require a survey. But I wasn’t done yet. I was representing decades of solid professional American law enforcement philosophy. This whole, “we don’t shoot to kill” concept was a cornerstone of modern police training.

I came back with a fastball. “Well, what if the guy is shooting at you? Dropping him to the ground with a leg shot may stop the forward attack but it is not likely to stop the threat?” he can still fire at you — and you wont have time to assess the continued threat to see if he stopped!

He grinned at me, “If he is shooting at you? Well, then we use lethal shots — two to the chest, one to the head.”

He smacked it out of the park. If you are being shot at, well, then you use lethal shots — two to the chest and one on the head. Of course you do!

Last edited by Abooga; 18th September 2017 at 08:52 AM.
Abooga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 08:56 AM   #17
Worm
Graduate Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,606
Having fired a handgun precisely once in my life (about 8 years ago), I'm surprised even trained officers manage to hit anything in the same zip code, far less a human being, at a range of anything more than about 5 feet. It looks easy when someone really knows what they are doing, but in my minor experience it is pretty damn hard. (don't ask me what kind of weapon it was - I have literally no idea...it was an automatic handgun of some sort)

If I remember, I'll try and find the video I have of it, so those with expertise can tell me how wrong I was doing everything.

Certainly it reinforced (for me at least) the point that shooting centre mass is done for a reason.
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 09:13 AM   #18
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,556
I don't see how shooting to wound is such a difficult prospect, personally. Yes, center mass is easier to hit, but having fired weapons myself (yes, I am a military veteran and have fired multiple weapons), I think it's rather insulting to assume that trained police officers would only be able to hit center mass and therefore must aim there.

That aside, it looks like the student's parents are already making the claim that lethal force should not have been used, and their lawyer is making the claim that the knife Scout held did not actually have the blade open. Fairly sure they're going to use that in their upcoming lawsuit (one assumes that if they already have a lawyer that a lawsuit can't be far behind) if they can prove it.

I do think the police were in the right here; I don't want to give the impression I don't think that. To me, from watching the video, I absolutely think Scout was acting in a threatening manner, from refusing to listen to the shouted commands to yelling back "Shoot me!" and walking toward them in an apparently threatening manner. I'm just concerned this will turn into an overreaction by extremists who are going to try to turn it into a notion of "cops kill blacks/LGBTQ while whites and straights aren't ever harmed" or some ridiculous notion like that, which is the absolute last thing I think this country needs.
__________________
"All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: Freedom, Justice, Honor, Duty, Mercy, Hope."-Winston Churchill
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do"-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 09:48 AM   #19
TX50
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,793
When I lived in the Netherlands I often read newspaper reports of police having shot someone in the legs. The implication seemed to be that this was done deliberately to immobilise them. It always mystified me. Can any cloggy members perhaps clarify?

Don't American cops skip OO buck from their shotguns off the road to hit folks in the legs, or did I just imagine that? IIRC it was in a Mas.Ayoob book.
TX50 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 09:55 AM   #20
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,803
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
And, as any nurse can tell you, there are no major arteries in the legs.
So you are worried about a fatal leg wound which means you should go for a much more likely fatal chest wound?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 09:58 AM   #21
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,803
Originally Posted by Barber Shop View Post
You can usually tell who has not had any experience with firearms when they bring up this fantasy scenario of shooting-to-wound.
If you look at that video, the cop is only 10 or 15 feet away from the victim. No one is expecting cops to take chances when a suspect is actually threatening them.

But there are potentially preventable fatalities when the suspects are acting mentally ill rather than aggressive. Why use tasers at all if every case is so risky for the cops?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 10:02 AM   #22
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,803
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
To add to this - tasers are nowhere near as effective as portrayed in movies and TV.

One can find any number of videos of people being tasered without falling down or being incapacitated in any way. I've provided one such video in this forum several times already. Tasers are really unpleasant to be hit with, and they frequently work well enough - but not nearly as reliably as people seem to think. Even if both barbs get through the clothing, its just not that incapacitating to many people, just moving around is usually enough to dislodge one or both of the barbs, which means no more shocks.
Scout was not attacking the cops and was walking slowly with a knife in his hand.

This same stupid argument comes up again and again in this forum. Face it, cops kill people needlessly. Surely in some cases there are or should be other options for the police. No one is suggesting kid gloves when cops truly are in danger from an armed aggressive suspect.

But why does being mentally ill or out of it mean cops should kill the person because they see every suspect as a dangerous criminal? We don't shoot mentally ill people who are out of control in the hospital.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 18th September 2017 at 11:09 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 10:07 AM   #23
Pterodactyl
Muse
 
Pterodactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 717
Love the idea of introducing more variables and nuance to application of deadly force.
What could go wrong?
Pterodactyl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 10:19 AM   #24
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,643
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
I don't see how shooting to wound is such a difficult prospect, personally. Yes, center mass is easier to hit, but having fired weapons myself (yes, I am a military veteran and have fired multiple weapons), I think it's rather insulting to assume that trained police officers would only be able to hit center mass and therefore must aim there.
Well, you not seeing how doesn't change anything. It's a well known fact.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 10:22 AM   #25
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,149
I met Scout a couple months ago, we have a lot of mutual friends. A lot of people are really hurting over this.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 10:23 AM   #26
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,326
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So you are worried about a fatal leg wound which means you should go for a much more likely fatal chest wound?
The idea being that you shouldn't be using the gun in situations that you are not OK with a fatal chest wound.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 10:24 AM   #27
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,149
Also, FWIW, Scout preferred "they/them" to "he/him."
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 10:35 AM   #28
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,489
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
The idea being that you shouldn't be using the gun in situations that you are not OK with a fatal chest wound.
Someone coming at you with a knife, not responding to verbal rebuke, seems like exactly the kind of situation that calls for fatal chest wounds.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 10:35 AM   #29
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,826
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
This same stupid argument comes up again and again in this forum.
I made no argument, unless you are arguing that tasers are more effective than typically portrayed.

If you are looking for a judgement as to whether or not I think this shooting was justified, you won't find it, because I expressed no judgement. The only statement I made was to point out that tasers are not magical instruments capable of instantly rendering anyone instantly incapacitated and uninjured. My statement is entirely true - but is also only part of the issue surrounding the use of lethal force by police.
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 11:00 AM   #30
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,671
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
Also, FWIW, Scout preferred "they/them" to "he/him."
Which leads to some confusing parts in that first article:

Quote:
Friends of Scout Schultz laying flowers at spot where they were killed this morning.
How can the friends be laying flowers at the spot where "they" were killed?

Quote:
We are distraught over the loss of Scout Schultz. They were an incredible, inspirational member of our community and a constant fighter for human rights.
Perhaps we can change the grammar rules so that they can be both singular and plural, and we could re-write the first sentence to say "Friends of Scout Schultz laying flowers at the spot where they was killed this morning."

See how much clearer that is about who was killed?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 11:02 AM   #31
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,149
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Which leads to some confusing parts in that first article:



How can the friends be laying flowers at the spot where "they" were killed?



Perhaps we can change the grammar rules so that they can be both singular and plural, and we could re-write the first sentence to say "Friends of Scout Schultz laying flowers at the spot where they was killed this morning."

See how much clearer that is about who was killed?
*shrug* I had no trouble following it.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 11:04 AM   #32
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,803
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
The idea being that you shouldn't be using the gun in situations that you are not OK with a fatal chest wound.
I already said it was a shame they didn't try a taser.

Of course that led to a post saying tasers don't always disable people.

This discussion is useless. Bottom line, a non-lethal option was unfortunately not used here. The guy was acting odd, not cooperating and it's understandable the police used lethal force. But given other options, the victim was not lunging, wasn't being aggressive.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 11:06 AM   #33
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,803
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
*shrug* I had no trouble following it.
Me either: "Friends of Scout Schultz laying flowers at the spot where Scout was killed this morning." Pretty simple.

But trying to correct my posts above that are still in the edit window, I do have trouble with "they was" and trouble using the plural 'were'. I'll go insert 'Scout' where I can.

I'm sorry you lost your friend.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 18th September 2017 at 11:09 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 11:25 AM   #34
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,338
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The guy was not attacking the cops, he was walking slowly with a knife in his hand.

This same stupid argument comes up again and again in this forum. Face it, cops kill people needlessly. Surely in some cases there are or should be other options for the police. No one is suggesting kid gloves when cops truly are in danger from an armed aggressive suspect.

But why does being mentally ill mean cops should kill the person because they see every suspect as a dangerous criminal? We don't shoot mentally ill people who are out of control in the hospital.
I agree that cops in the USA sometimes kill people needlessly.

I also agree that the solution is not a simple one, and shooting to wound is never going to be viable.

Less than lethal rounds sometimes kill people. Tasers sometimes kill people.
A beanbag shotgun round to the chest can stop your heart. Rubber rounds sometimes penetrate too far and kill.

Less than lethal rounds are also sometimes totally ineffective at stopping a suspect. Now the suspect has reached you and you still have an ineffective weapon in your hands instead of the one that can save your life.

Drugs have to be carefully applied to knock a person out without knocking them all the way to death, if you are thinking of some kind of airgun applied needle full of anesthesia.

I practice fairly often with my pistols and I would not want to try to hit a moving target in the arm or leg from 15 feet away. I can probably do it in a controlled environment. But on the fly in combat? That's a very dodgy proposition.

Plus, the moving target means a moving and changing background for your bullets to hit when you miss or have a pass thru. You should always be considering your "backstop" if you have to fire your gun. A moving target makes that one more challenge for you under stress.

An arm or leg hit is also more likely to be a pass thru wound, with the bullet going on to strike whatever is behind the target.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 11:34 AM   #35
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
But given other options, the victim was not lunging, wasn't being aggressive.
When you hold a weapon and repeatedly advance on police who are repeatedly commanding you to stop, that's aggressive.

This looks like a case of suicide by cop, and that's tragic, but police are under no obligation to put their lives in jeopardy to prevent someone from doing that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 11:41 AM   #36
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,319
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
I met Scout a couple months ago, we have a lot of mutual friends. A lot of people are really hurting over this.
I'm sorry this hit close to home for you.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 11:58 AM   #37
Yeggster
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,701
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
So? There's a difference between shooting on a target range and shooting in a police-type simulator. Moreover, any handgun experience at all is (or should be) enough to teach you how difficult it is to hit even the largest, closest, static target. Throw in adrenaline, movement, nerves, and a perceived threat from the target, and you're doing well to come even close.

This signature is intended to irritate people.
Good point ... I'm a very experienced shooter and frankly I am quite good with handgun or rifle ... at paper targets that is ... I'm not sure I'd be any use at all in a life and death situation ... it's not the same thing at all
Yeggster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 12:18 PM   #38
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,093
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I made no argument, unless you are arguing that tasers are more effective than typically portrayed.

If you are looking for a judgement as to whether or not I think this shooting was justified, you won't find it, because I expressed no judgement. The only statement I made was to point out that tasers are not magical instruments capable of instantly rendering anyone instantly incapacitated and uninjured. My statement is entirely true - but is also only part of the issue surrounding the use of lethal force by police.


The problem is, there's some middle ground between "tasers are magic" and "tasers are useless". This case seems like one where it would have at least been worth it to try a taser. This person spent at least a minute slowly approaching the cops, and ending up fairly close, a range at which it seems a taser could have been effective.

Would it have certainly stopped them? Maybe not, but it should have been worth the attempt. There was more than one cop there, why not have one of them try the taser, with the others there as back up if the taser fails?

If tasers couldn't be used here, then when could they be used?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 12:58 PM   #39
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 5,254
Caution: speculation follows. This is intended for discussion to see if it's possible or just a silly idea.

It seems that outside of hand-to-hand range, the weapons police have at their disposal are very limited: taser and gun. What we need is some sort of device that would be effective at the 15 to 30 foot range, probably expelled with some force to cover the distance quickly but with hopefully with non-lethal consequences if it impacted the person. Could it deliver a net? Nasty chemicals? (They could affect the police, too.) Something very heavy that would weigh the person down? (Probably not: something that heavy would probably kill on impact, and if it didn't, how would it attach the weight to the person?)

Maybe fire a large, heavy ball at the person to force them off their feet? (Great, he's down. Now what?)
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 01:04 PM   #40
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,803
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I agree that cops in the USA sometimes kill people needlessly.

I also agree that the solution is not a simple one, and shooting to wound is never going to be viable.

Less than lethal rounds sometimes kill people. Tasers sometimes kill people.
A beanbag shotgun round to the chest can stop your heart. Rubber rounds sometimes penetrate too far and kill.

Less than lethal rounds are also sometimes totally ineffective at stopping a suspect. Now the suspect has reached you and you still have an ineffective weapon in your hands instead of the one that can save your life.

Drugs have to be carefully applied to knock a person out without knocking them all the way to death, if you are thinking of some kind of airgun applied needle full of anesthesia.

I practice fairly often with my pistols and I would not want to try to hit a moving target in the arm or leg from 15 feet away. I can probably do it in a controlled environment. But on the fly in combat? That's a very dodgy proposition.

Plus, the moving target means a moving and changing background for your bullets to hit when you miss or have a pass thru. You should always be considering your "backstop" if you have to fire your gun. A moving target makes that one more challenge for you under stress.

An arm or leg hit is also more likely to be a pass thru wound, with the bullet going on to strike whatever is behind the target.
So your argument is because non-lethal options are sometimes lethal the cops might as well shoot to kill?

Why point those potential failures out?

As for protection, I didn't see the danger at the point the cop shot. I think if one tried for the leg and missed, one could still shoot at the center.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Đ 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.