It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why did you shoot the suspect 68 times

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:06 AM
Don't know why a case is being brought up from almost a decade ago. But here is the story from Fox:

Says in the article there were 10 swat officers. So 10 swat officers fired 110 rounds of which 68 hit the cop killer. That's what, an average of 10-11 shots per officer? That's not that bad. You know a sure fire way of defeating force? With your own overwhelming force. If that man had dropped his gun and got on his knees with his hands behind his head he would be alive and well sucking up our tax payer resources.

(post by chuck258 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:07 PM
a reply to: TrueBrit

As previously stated as an officer I would love to see better training all around.

Again as I stated I personally pursue that type of training via outside sources. This comes out of my own pocket and it is difficult to come up the money at times.

However, the issue is people world wide are already complaining that the police are too "militarized."

I think if we start training the way you believe we should people would be even more outraged.

Overall I do agree with you though. There needs to be better training. We also need better applicants. People no longer want to do the job and agencies are scraping the bottom of the barrel for applicants because they are required to fill positions.

posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 05:00 PM

originally posted by: lspilot6946
That quote was from our god of a sheriff Grady Judd. I remember when the SWAT team killed that guy that day. I was right down the road when all that stuff happened. The guy shot two deputies earlier in the day, killing Deputy Matt Williams and his K-9 Diogi. Now, I'm not a fan of our Sheriff one bit, he's done some pretty controversial things,(search Grady Judd and look for my thread on him) but when it comes to killing a cop, I think the guy got what he deserved.

The whole point is its okay for you to think like that. You are not involved in any of the processes. But for dropping a bomb like that at a press conference he should at least have been investigated by authorities or undergone some kind of psychological exam if after the traumatic experience of losing a Colleague in such a violent way he maybe should lay off carrying a gun for a month or so.

I cant tell what the problem is whether it is training, antiquated views of what the Sherrif should be like, or cops having grown up on a diet of American cable TV. The latter would explain why many seem to think shooting with their pistols at a car speeding away is an reasonable risk/reward move.

Also we do have Firearms in Germany and quite enough of them. But we also have regulations on how they must be stored. But you cant even talk about an reasonable storage and safekeeping of firearms to some Americans without them eating your face up. Granted most Americans keep their weapons in a gun safe without somebody telling them to, but come up with a percentage however small you can come up with for the exceptions and apply it to the 270 Mil. firearms in the US. If you argue that 270 Mil. weapons cause 10.000 American deaths each year you get a tiny percentage too. But while gun violence might play a part on why the police in America draws their gun on a weekly (daily?) basis its another set of discussion.
edit on 2-12-2014 by Merinda because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 10:20 AM

originally posted by: Montana
a reply to: launchpad

Is there any way I could flag this post a million times? You are spot on with your whole post. Thanks, brother!

Thanks man! Apparently you and a few others figgured out how to do that. Cause that must be where all those stars came from. . .seems i am up to a 1.17 MILLION. With still less than 250 posts. . .that must be some sort of a record.


posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 07:53 PM
a reply to: TorqueyThePig

I believe there would be a way to train officers to a high level of proficiency, without militarising them. For a start uniforms should clearly be uniforms and not fatigues. Crisply pressed trousers, shirts with badges and shoulder numbers polished and clearly visible at all times is a good start. Furthermore, officers should only go about with sidearms and a backup, cuffs, pepper spray, notebook, and radio. They should not be striding about with rifles and SMGs unless a full blown war is actually kicking off and they are responding to it.

They should not respond to protests, no matter what kind, dressed for a riot. A riot must be allowed to develop before that sort of force is deployed. Those are management and operational changes that must be made. In order for those changes not to represent a threat to the people that police personnel are supposed to serve and protect, those officers must be capable of out shooting, out manoeuvring, and physically overpowering any suspect who chooses to do violence rather than be captured, and they must be capable of doing these things using superior training, rather than by weight of numbers or rate of fire.

A criminal with a tech nine can cause an awful lot of mess, but one round to the skull will still kill him, no matter how fast his weapon rids itself of ammunition. The training I refer to would be all about getting every officer, on every force, to be able make that shot AND to deal with BOTH normal, run of the mill community policing without having to straight up murder someone to get the job done, and putting down an armed heist crew with only the rounds in his service weapon, and superior tactical and marksmanship training. No fancy special weapons, no Judge Dredd armour suit. No excuses for going over the top and making errors that NO ONE who carries a deadly weapon professionally, ought to be able to make if properly trained and managed.

I also think that all officers should be trained in rudimentary psychology, so that they can have a better understanding and awareness of the people around them when they are on the job, to tell someone who is merely disturbed, from someone who is showing signs of becoming seriously dangerous to themselves and others around them.

I am not talking about putting SEAL teams on the streets of cities here. As I mentioned, those types of units are used to destroy, to rend the flesh of foes, to kill and maim enemies, and to put the fear of almighty God into all who lay eyes upon the aftermath of their passage. They are shock and awe made flesh, and that is not what is required here.

I am talking about putting every officer of the law, in a position where they have trained in responses which allow them to counter any threat against themselves or the public, with wisdom, precision, and with absolute confidence. I am talking about marrying that training to the kind of learning which allows them to make good, informed judgements about situations involving the mentally ill, the poor, essentially also teaching them how to make compassionate efforts toward members of the community who are not actually engaging in real criminal activity, essentially, how to deal with the public. What I am talking about, is training police officers to embody the ideals of compassion and steadfastness, both at once, and with equal importance.

That would be DE-militarising the police force, if anything.

posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 08:16 PM

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
Again as I stated I personally pursue that type of training via outside sources. This comes out of my own pocket and it is difficult to come up the money at times.

I congratulate you. Although this is the nets and it's tough to believe anything, I used to train LEOs as an IDPA trainer in point-shoot. Sort of giving back what I had been taught in the military. I think IDPA or IPSC would be more than overjoyed to teach you for free. A lot of my service brethren teach IDPA, or at least I ran into an abundance of them when I was active in the organization.

new topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in