80 to 85 shots to kill a man in Philadelphia?

80 to 85 shots to kill a man in Philadelphia?

www.kyw1060.com

Eventually, as he has the weapon going back and forth, he turns around, he points the weapon at one of the officers. When he points the weapon at the officers, the officers fire."

Johnson estimates that seven officers fired a total of 80 to 85 shots, killing the man.

He says that although it's considered a justifiable shooting, there is concern about the number of rounds fired. And, he says, some of the officers involved may be retrained out of concerns for safety.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I just think it is amazing that these police had to fire that many times to down a gunman. In my opinion, they didn't just want to immobilize this guy, they wanted to make an example here. How exaggerated is 85 shots! Either these police need some serious target practice, or this was just a chance for everyone to shoot their guns at someone, which seems more likely to me.

www.kyw1060.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 10-7-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

Thats around 11-12 shots per officer and probsbly some fired more than other so unless one reloaded and began to fire I wouldnt fault the police if the suspect did infact point a gun at them. Semi-auto handguns fire fast to so I could see all the bullets being fired within a matter of 5 seconds or so but 85 is a lot of bullets and maby they did go overboard but I also wouldnt want to be in their shoes during that type of situation even with training.

Something like that happened some years ago in New York, I think, but in that case the man killed by the police was innocent, he was going to show his ID but the policemen thought that he was going to get a gun.

To me this shows one of two things, excessive rage against a criminal or an extreme lack of confidence.

Trigger happy cops finally get a reason to get their gun off, so they each unload a full clip into the guy.

That kinda sends me the message that a lot of people join the force just so they can carry around a big bad gun and pump the perps full of lead. IMO non-lethal means should be used, but I guess I'm just a big softy like that.

He took about 80-85 large caliber bullets. Over doing it? Everyone almost emptied the clip on him. They were trying to make sure he went cold on the spot..... He might have still been aiming for the first two seconds, the coroner report would be able to tell if they were still firing after he fell. 7 cops just got a week long vacation.

80 to 85 shots was probably 75 to many. Cops don't shoot to wound they shoot to kill.

The entire department should be retrained not just the officers involved.


[edit on 10-7-2007 by goose28in]

[edit on 10-7-2007 by goose28in]

I'm with the cops on this one.

Try putting yourself in their shoes. All it takes is one bullet from a drug-crazed idiot and you are done. I just appreciate their dedication because being a cop is not a high paying job.

I applaud cops killing criminals. It saves the court system and the over-crowed jail system.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by RRconservative]

It doesn't say the 80 - 85 shots all hit the crook. It said they fired that many rounds before he died. Only one or two might have hit the guy. He could have had cover.

Since none of us were there, I think it's safe to assume we really don't know the situation. Crooks on pcp have been known to actually bust handcuffs, beat multiple officers, and resist pain/dying for long periods. Who knows?

Hooray for people who have little to no grasp of reality!

And I'm not talking about the police.

Let's say for instance that a criminal points a weapon at an officer, which of the following is most likely to occur:

Police officers fire once or twice, politely ask whether the criminal in question is capable of doing harm to them, and then decide whether or not to continue the gun battle;

OR

Police fire as many times as they view necessary to end the threat.

As to the person who mentioned non-lethal means...no such thing. Less than lethal means can be used, and if you want to see them used, you can be teh one who tries to mace the guy with the gun.

DE

Well one thing is for certain, this will definitely be a closed casket funeral.

My opinion is that it does appear excessive but when you consider the circumstances and all possible scenarios it's understandable...

[edit on 10-7-2007 by WestPoint23]

Unfortunately, we do not know whether or not the officers were using automatics.

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
It doesn't say the 80 - 85 shots all hit the crook. It said they fired that many rounds before he died. Only one or two might have hit the guy.

You made a great point, however IF all these rounds weren’t being embedded in "cover" then just think of who may have been behind those bullets. Anyone within a mile was put at risk.

You are probably right, common sense and training should stop anyone from firing that many rounds unnecessarily so there was probably a good reason...but if 75 of those rounds went astray, it could have ended badly.

Originally posted by DeusEx
Police officers fire once or twice, politely ask whether the criminal in question is capable of doing harm to them, and then decide whether or not to continue the gun battle;

OR

Police fire as many times as they view necessary to end the threat.

K, as a former firearms and advanced ground tactics trainer for a large police force and as someone who has been involved in multiple gun fights, I can say with some authority that you are right and wrong.

You are right that you are to "shoot to stop the threat," however you are wrong in that officers ARE expected to be able to keep a clear enough mind so as to show restraint.

Some figures for you:

According to separate FBI and Department of Justice studies, the average gun fight is over within 2 seconds and an average of between 2 and 3 rounds are fired TOTAL.

The major determining factor in survival of a gun fight is not how many rounds you fire, but in what order you fire.

Close to 90% of the time the first person to fire, be it the bad or good guy and regardless of caliber and protection level, wins the fight. That is not to say that body armor can’t save your life if the bad guy gets the jump on you, but most of the time you will not be able to return fire, so the bad guy wins.

Most departments train officers to fire rounds in groups of two.

The three major rules of gun fighting are:
1. Have a gun.
2. Keep it loaded.
3. Fire FIRST.

Originally posted by DeusEx
Let's say for instance that a criminal points a weapon at an officer, which of the following is most likely to occur:

Police officers fire once or twice, politely ask whether the criminal in question is capable of doing harm to them, and then decide whether or not to continue the gun battle;

OR

Police fire as many times as they view necessary to end the threat.

As to the person who mentioned non-lethal means...no such thing. Less than lethal means can be used, and if you want to see them used, you can be teh one who tries to mace the guy with the gun.

DE

Exactly! They stopped the threat. The guy could've started randomly firing at civilians and the loss of life could've been much worse. They did their jobs. I'm not sure what their Dept uses for guns, but the one my husband works for, only give high powered rifles to a few officers on a team. He carries his duty weapon, a back up and his police car has a shotgun. I think with all the extra magazines he has a total of 54 rounds. He says if he has to use all 54 then hell is certainly breaking loose. As of tonight he's never shot his weapon on duty. He's had to pull it out on some felony stops, but that's as far as it's gone. He doesn't look forward to shooting anyone. He will however protect himself,civilians and his team members should the need arise.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by vckums]

Originally posted by vckums
He says if he has to use all 54 then hell is certainly breaking loose.

Yeah, if you have to reload, then you are likely screwed already. I cant even think of a single fight in Iraq where I actually fired 54 rounds.

Maybe these articles will help to understand the situation.

Seven police officers fired up to 85 rounds at a "deranged" man who was killed while pacing with a gun on a South Philadelphia streetcorner, authorities said yesterday.

Police Commissioner Sylvester M. Johnson said police shot the man, who was speaking incoherently, after he did not respond to repeated orders to drop the weapon Sunday evening and pointed it at the officers.

Steven Miller, 30, of the 1600 block of South Taney Street, had a fully loaded pistol but did not fire, officials said.

Two officers required treatment for friendly-fire graze wounds from ricocheting bullet fragments or debris.

Source

"I saw [the situation] right before the firing started," said resident Jalen Miles. "I then saw cops aiming at him, and I said, 'They are about to kill him,' and that's when my mom said for me to go into the house.
"I heard 90 or more shots."
Miles was able to capture some grainy video with his cell phone, which showed cops moving into position with their guns drawn.

Source