Utopia Talk / Politics / Nashville shooting

Rugian Member	Sat Apr 24 12:59:30 Nashville officer fatally shoots man armed with two butcher knives, police say By Nicole Acevedo A police officer fatally shot a man during a traffic stop in Nashville, Tennessee, early Saturday morning after he charged the officer with two butcher knives, authorities said. The shooting took place in the city's Bordeaux neighborhood around midnight while Officer Christopher Royer was on routine patrol, Metropolitan Nashville Police Department spokesman Don Aaron said in a press conference following the shooting. Royer initiated the traffic stop after learning the license plate on a white Mercedes was registered to a green Chevrolet, Aaron said. While the driver remained cooperative throughout the traffic stop, the passenger immediately got out of the vehicle with two butcher knives. Body-camera footage released by police on Saturday shows the armed man attempting to get inside the police officer's vehicle. The driver can be heard screaming at the man, "What are you doing?" and "Stop!" as Royer urged the man to drop his weapon. "I don't want to shoot you," the police officer is heard yelling on the video footage as he repeatedly requested backup. Aaron said Royer backed 25 yards away from his police car as the armed passenger began running toward him. As the man approached, Royer appears in the video footage to fire three shots to the man's chest before he collapsed in the middle of the street. The man died after he was taken to Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Aaron said. Authorities have not released his name. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1265186
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Apr 24 13:35:51 this is one of those situations i think they should start aiming at legs... doesn't look that much smaller a target to me & if you miss less likely to shoot things behind (had to watch that like 3 times to figure out how he got from car door to behind car :p... looked at first like he climbed through it)
Rugian Member	Sat Apr 24 14:09:06 So good to get the opinion of a certified firearms expert on the best shooting practices for stopping a threatening target.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Apr 24 15:20:20 yes, if your only goal is stopping, shooting at torso makes sense (and there was one knifer they shot & continued to shoot as he was collapsing as he wasn't stopped i guess) there seemed plenty of time to aim differently in this case is my point & -maybe- trying not to be fatal might also be a consideration of cops
Paramount Member	Sat Apr 24 15:39:11 Why was his buddy in the white Mercedes cooperative while he was running around like crazy with two butcher knives? That guy was almost frenzied like a zombie.
kargen Member	Sat Apr 24 18:18:52 The gun is considered deadly force. If a gun is needed then simply subduing the suspect has flown. The goal is end the threat as quick as possible with minimal risk to others.
Wrath of Orion Member	Sat Apr 24 18:27:42 No, they don't need to start aiming at legs. If you're going to charge a cop with weapons, you should take a couple in the chest.
kargen Member	Sat Apr 24 18:31:40 Just a wild assed guess on my part but I'm thinking a person that charges a cop with a knife is looking to commit suicide by cop. Sucks that the cop has to live with killing someone but the alternative would suck more.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Apr 24 18:37:31 extremely unlikely to be suicide by cop as the car was stopped by cop for having a wrong license plate (so not something initiated by knifer)... and no reason to run erratically behind car, etc... you would stick to charging cop much more likely drugs
kargen Member	Sat Apr 24 19:14:33 I wasn't talking specifically about this incident. Drugs might be even more reason to go center mass. Depending on the drugs a couple of bullet holes in them might not slow them down much.
Forwyn Member	Sat Apr 24 20:59:50 "Royer initiated the traffic stop after learning the license plate on a white Mercedes was registered to a green Chevrolet" I guess TN cops can just check any car in the database with no reason?
kargen Member	Sat Apr 24 21:25:48 How do you know there was no reason?
Wrath of Orion Member	Sat Apr 24 22:42:55 "I guess TN cops can just check any car in the database with no reason?" Pretty that goes for most (if not all) police across the US. They can, and do, randomly check plates.
Wrath of Orion Member	Sat Apr 24 22:43:09 Pretty *sure
obaminated Member	Sat Apr 24 23:39:06 Legs are a lot smaller and moving a lot more than a chest. Tw fails sensibility class once again.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Apr 25 00:45:51 he's running right at the cop, the cop is going to shoot many times, they always do, the legs shouldn't be hard to hit... or how about aim at the dick... then you have a nice radius of body parts & chance at sterilizing w/ less chance of fatality & safer for anything in the background
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Apr 25 00:48:24 ...a policy of aiming at the dick might cut down on resisting arrest too
Forwyn Member	Sun Apr 25 03:01:03 "How do you know there was no reason?" "Royer initiated the traffic stop after learning the license plate..." "Pretty that goes for most (if not all) police across the US." Maybe it's just Florida that punishes penalizes unauthorized/frivolous searches. http://www...-databases-20130119-story.html
Paramount Member	Sun Apr 25 03:14:20 ” he's running right at the cop, the cop is going to shoot many times, they always do, the legs shouldn't be hard to hit...” I don’t know. The speed he was running at... if he was coming at me I would have felt more secure to aim at his body and not at his legs. It looks like the zombie with the knives were just like 1-2 seconds away from the officer when the officer decided it is time to shoot it. But where was the police officer’s partner? His partner could have thrown himself at the assailants legs, who then would have fallen down on the road, maybe face first. The attacked police officer could then have drawn his battoon and started to hit the assailants hands until he dropped the knives, or pepper spray his face.
Rugian Member	Sun Apr 25 08:24:19 I can't believe tw - a person who has little to no experience with firearms, mind you - actually thinks he knows better than everyone else on this subject. No, tw. You don't go for the legs. Center mass is the easiest target by far.
Rugian Member	Sun Apr 25 08:27:26 "Studies by the Force Science Research Center reveal some of the practical problems with [having police officers aim for arms or legs]. Lewinski explains some of the basics of human dynamics and anatomy and the relative risks of misses and hits: “Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts. For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second. “The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round. “There is no way an officer can react, track, shoot and reliably hit a threatening suspect’s forearm or a weapon in a suspect’s hand in the time spans involved. “Even if the suspect held his weapon arm steady for half a second or more, an accurate hit would be highly unlikely, and in police shootings the suspect and his weapon are seldom stationary. Plus, the officer himself may be moving as he shoots. “The upper arms move more slowly than the lower arms and hands. But shooting at the upper arms, there’s a greater chance you’re going to hit the suspect’s brachial artery or center mass, areas with a high probability of fatality. So where does shooting only to wound come in when even areas considered by some to ‘safe’ from fatality risk could in fact carry the same level of risk as targeting center mass? “Legs tend initially to move slower than arms and to maintain more static positions. However, areas of the lower trunk and upper thigh are rich with vascularity. A suspect who’s hit there can bleed out in seconds if one of the major arteries is severed, so again shooting just to wound may not result in just wounding. “On the other hand, if an officer manages to take a suspect’s legs out non-fatally, that still leaves the offender’s hands free to shoot. His ability to threaten lives hasn’t necessarily been stopped.” As to preventing so-called “overkill” from shots that are fired after a threat is neutralized, Lewinski offers these observations: “Twenty years ago officers were trained to ’shoot then assess.’ They fired 1 or 2 rounds, then stopped to see the effect. This required 1/4 to 1/2 second, during which time the suspect could keep firing, if he hadn’t been incapacitated. “Now they’re taught to ‘shoot and assess,’ to judge the effect of their shots as they continue to fire, an on-going process. This allows the officer to continually defend himself, but because the brain is trying to do 2 things at once–shoot and assess–a very significant change in the offender’s behavior needs to take place in order for the officer to recognize the change of circumstances. “A suspect falling to the ground from being shot would be a significant change. But by analyzing the way people fall, we’ve determined that it takes 2/3 of a second to a full second or more for a person to fall to the ground from a standing position. And that is when they’ve been hit in a motor center that produces instant loss of muscle tension. “While an officer is noticing this change, he is going to continue firing if he is shooting as fast as he can under the stress of trying to save his life. On average, from the time an officer perceives a change in stimulus to the time he is able to process that and actually stop firing, 2 to 3 additional rounds will be expended. “Shooting beyond the moment a threat is neutralized is not a willful, malicious action in most cases. It’s an involuntary factor of human dynamics. “Given what science tells us about armed encounters, this most recent proposal is a fantasy, just like Paterson’s legislation before it. They would hold officers to super-human performance and punish them criminally for being unable to achieve it.”" http://www...r-tactically-6bOdYvNUEECtIWRI/
Rugian Member	Sun Apr 25 08:30:56 Tactical Issues Modern training teaches that when an officer uses deadly force the intent should be to stop the suspect’s threatening behavior as fast as possible. In the words of firearms trainer Ron Avery, himself a championship shooter, head of the Practical Shooting Academy and a member of the Force Science Technical Advisory Board, shooting for an assailant’s center mass is usually considered the most effective first option because the upper torso combines a concentration of vital areas and major blood vessels within the body’s largest target. “When the risk of failure is death, an officer needs the highest percentage chance of success he can get,” Everett notes. Shooting instead for a smaller, faster-moving arm or a leg with the intent to wound rather than to incapacitate invites a myriad of tactical dilemmas. For instance: • An officer’s survival instinct may exert an overpowering influence on target selection. “I don’t care how good a shot you are,” says Avery, “if your life is threatened you’re going to go for the surer thing first and worry about your assailant’s life being saved second. If a guy is running at me with a blade, the last thing I’m going to be thinking is ‘I’m going to shoot him in the arm.’” Hence, shooting for center mass may become a psychological default. • Poor shot placement is bound to increase. Even when officers are trying to shoot center mass, they often miss. Lewinski recalls a case he was involved in where an officer firing under high stress just 5 feet from an offender failed to hit him at all with the first 5 rounds and connected with the next four only because the suspect moved into his line of fire. “Hitting an arm or a leg on a moving suspect with surgical precision will be virtually impossible,” Avery asserts. “I could probably count on one hand the individuals who can make that kind of shot under the pressure of their life on the line. Expecting that level of performance by police officers on an agency-wide basis is ludicrous.” Misses may well go on to injure or kill someone else. • Use of certain weapons might be discouraged. “Because of the spread pattern, an officer might be precluded from grabbing a shotgun, for fear of hitting more vital areas when he tries to shoot to wound,” Everett speculates. “If the offender has a fully automatic weapon, say, should an officer be prevented from using the best defensive weapon he may have because it might have sweep or rise?” • “Successful” shots could be dangerous to people besides the suspect because of through-and-through penetration. “Virtually every police round today is designed to penetrate heavy clothing and 10 to 12 inches of ballistic gel,” explains Chudwin. “Rounds with that capability will penetrate even the biggest arms” and could, like misses, then travel on to hit unintended targets in the background. • “Successful” shots that don’t persuade an offender to quit leave the officer still in peril. When we know from street experience that even multiple center-mass hits don’t always stop determined, deranged or drugged attackers, “how many officers would be murdered by offenders who get shot in a limb and are still fully capable of shooting back?” Chudwin asks. Indeed, Avery believes that shooting an offender without incapacitating him “may just infuriate him, so he doubles his effort to kill you. There is no dependable correlation between wounding someone and making them stop.” • “Shooting to wound reflects a misapplication of police equipment. “Less-lethal options should be attempted only with tools designed for that purpose,” Avery says. “If you deliberately use deadly force to bring people into custody without incapacitating them, you’re using the wrong tool for that job. Also if you shoot them in the arm or leg and you destroy muscle tissue, shatter bone or destroy nerve function you have maimed that person for life. Now attorneys can play the argument of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ and pursue punitive damages for destroying the capacity of your ‘victim’ to earn wages and so on. You don’t try to just wound people with a gun. Period.” The experts we consulted agreed that advocates who push a shoot-to-wound agenda appear to understand little about human dynamics, ballistics, tactics, force legalities or the challenges officers face on the street. Chudwin has found that these critics of police practices can often be enlightened if they are invited to experience force decision-making scenarios on a firearms simulator. Avery has a more dramatic, if fanciful, idea. “Put them in a cage with a lion,” he suggests. “Then let’s see if they shoot to wound.”
Wrath of Orion Member	Sun Apr 25 10:17:28 Forwyn, did you actually read the article you posted? Please tell me you did, because that makes it even worse for you.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Apr 25 12:15:36 " I can't believe tw - a person who has little to no experience with firearms, mind you - actually thinks he knows better than everyone else on this subject. No, tw. You don't go for the legs. Center mass is the easiest target by far. " I can't believe Rugian can't understand i'm talking about a -change- of policy, from 'shoot to stop' to having minor consideration to 'also not kill when possible'... where in the hell did i suggest legs are -easier- to hit? if he's running at you, the legs are below the waist, at every point in the stride... i'm not saying aim at the feet ------ your two long articles have barely anything relevant to this situation "...rich with vascularity. A suspect who’s hit there can bleed out in seconds if one of the major arteries is severed..." only possible concern in 1st article in 2nd: "An officer’s survival instinct may exert an overpowering influence on target selection." ok... so worst case is they do what they already do --------- "Even when officers are trying to shoot center mass, they often miss" ok... so aiming slightly down actually safer for everyone else ---------- "...still fully capable of shooting back?” irrelevant here -------- "You don’t try to just wound people with a gun. Period.” kinda odd comment, since they insist their policy is "shoot to stop" and NOT "shoot to kill"
Forwyn Member	Sun Apr 25 15:10:48 "Forwyn, did you actually read the article you posted?" Yes. And I get your point, but if such regulations exist in other jurisdictions, a frivolous search as the basis for a stop is a good way to get a case thrown out.
Wrath of Orion Member	Sun Apr 25 15:19:02 Been challenged and rejected in courts numerous times. So...no, you're wrong. Thanks.
Forwyn Member	Sun Apr 25 15:27:40 Ah. Well, judges are by and large notorious faggots. Wasn't looking for an argument though. Chill, have a good Sunday.
kargen Member	Sun Apr 25 15:45:52 "I can't believe Rugian can't understand i'm talking about a -change- of policy, from 'shoot to stop' to having minor consideration to 'also not kill when possible'... where in the hell did i suggest legs are -easier- to hit?" Pepper spray, tasers and things like that are considered nonlethal force. A gun is lethal force. When an officer uses a gun it is usually because all forms of nonlethal force have failed and the officer believes there is imminent danger to himself or others. That being the case center mass is your best bet to stop the threat. A change in policy to try for extremities instead of center mass would put officers in greater risk.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Apr 25 17:27:53 well he didn't exhaust nonlethal... he started w/ gun out & that's all he ever planned to use (besides commands), so not sure why he can't attempt a nonlethal use of it given there was opportunity (yes, i -know- that's not current policy) if he had a taser, using it when the guy started looking in his cop car seems it would've been a good opportunity
obaminated Member	Sun Apr 25 23:33:16 he was being charged by a guy with two knives, you are proven yourself to be even more retarded for thinking the officer should have tried a taser first while being run down by a lunatic.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: