Florida cops kill bystander, but charge suspect they were trying to shoot with her murder

a reply to: GoOfYFoOt
Fight or flight are exactly the opposite. Unless I misunderstood you. The LEO fights in panic. Flight would be retreating.

Both are forms of anxiety.

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
a reply to: sdcigarpig

If you have ever been in a gun fight, the first thing that you will realize, along with the experts, there is no way to aim carefully. Bullets will fly freely. The body moves and reacts, the muscles tense and relax. The idea of a person firing a weapon and hitting just one person in such an occasion is only the fiction of Hollywood.

Well this was not a gunfight since the guys gun was not loaded.

Obviously he did not fire a shot.

And how exactly are the cops supposed to know this?

Excuse me sir...that gun that you have is there any bullets in it? Oh very well...carry on then.

Maybe because he only pointed his finger at them and never fired a shot.

How is it a gunfight if no one is shooting back? If I am the only one shooting then that is just target practice.

eta and how the hell do you shoot the guy 5 times and he lives, but you mange to kill an innocent bystander and shoot another cop.

I mean cmon how inept do you have to be. No one was shooting back.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

I prob read it here on ATS but can't say for sure, but what you wrote makes me think of this: Dogs bark for 2 main reasons: fear or anger. Neither one is acceptable in a trained police officer. I can understand that they mnay be scared or angry but they are supposed to exhibit professionalism while on the clock.

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt
Fight or flight are exactly the opposite. Unless I misunderstood you. The LEO fights in panic. Flight would be retreating.

Both are forms of anxiety.

Exactly. When someone is shooting at you, the normal reaction is to run! The training that LEO's receive is designed to override that reaction. But, many times, what actually transpires is some mixture of the two. And, that, is when bad things, unintended things, happen...

a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

If a cop does something bad, unintended, shouldn't they be held to the same standards as any other citizen of this country? That's really all I want. I hate seeing cops getting away with things any normal person would be put up on charges for.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: alienjuggalo
Let me ask you this and be truthful. If a person has a gun, are you going to put your life on the line that it may not be loaded? Would you?

Basic gun safety is that if you see a gun, be under the belief that it is loaded with a bullet in the chamber.

No, but I am not a cop, and it is not like these guys don't know what they are signing up for when they take the job.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

If a cop does something bad, unintended, shouldn't they be held to the same standards as any other citizen of this country? That's really all I want. I hate seeing cops getting away with things any normal person would be put up on charges for.

Ah, yes! The proverbial "Blue Wall"...Now you are getting it!

a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

I've gotten it for quite a while but thanks. I think, but I could be wrong, most people understand the thin blue line here on ATS. We know cops get away with things no normal person without a huge bank account could get away with and it's just been happening way too often lately and is pissing everybody off.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: alienjuggalo
Let me ask you this and be truthful. If a person has a gun, are you going to put your life on the line that it may not be loaded? Would you?

Basic gun safety is that if you see a gun, be under the belief that it is loaded with a bullet in the chamber.

No, but I am not a cop, and it is not like these guys don't know what they are signing up for when they take the job.

That, most likely is the unfortunate root of the problem!

The reasons for becoming an officer of the law, have changed so drastically in the last few decades!

It's no longer about the desire to protect and serve. It's about state benefits, the power trip and the aforementioned bullied-adolescence score to settle...

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

I've gotten it for quite a while but thanks. I think, but I could be wrong, most people understand the thin blue line here on ATS. We know cops get away with things no normal person without a huge bank account could get away with and it's just been happening way too often lately and is pissing everybody off.

I agree. And, my comment was tongue in cheek...

The issue has slowly been creeping to the forefront of the general public, but it already saturates many of us, I know.

It does fit nicely though, into the perceived paradigm of control, that we conspiracists can't ignore!

The future waits for no man. It's going to be interesting, to say the least...

a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

Guess I missed the humor/sarcasm in your post, hope I didn't come off offensive or anything. It just gets me to my core when crap like this goes on.

If someone with an AK-47 invades my home, and in the process of defending myself one of my rounds strike and kill my neighbor then I will be charged. Why is it that this highly trained LEO is held to a LOWER standard than me? The only person who is responsible for where a bullet lands is the person who fired it.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Have you ever owned, fired or even taken a fire arm safety course?
The facts are this, according to the article:

A person did call 911. The police showed up. Now all the police knows that the suspect has a firearm. There is a good chance that the suspect was told to drop the weapon, toss it away, to which the suspect in his drunk state, did not. Now the officers have 2 choices on this case. Running up to him is not an option, cause this person could end up firing at them, they do not know if the weapon is loaded or not. They tried to taze him, but apparently, the state that he was in, combined with the clothing that he was wearing had no effect on him. The suspect probably did not drop the gun, and probably pointed it at the officers.

Now with all that going on, how could an officer tell if the weapon was unloaded, which they could not, or stand there, but have to move to take cover, while drawing on the person and firing at the person. So how is this the officers fault again? Did they know the weapon was unloaded, no, did they try non lethal force first, yes. Did the non lethal force work, no, so they had to move it up to the next level, to try to protect people, and still make it home to their own families.
What would you have preferred the officers to do? Nothing? Let someone else get shot, that would have made a nice headline, bystander was shot as police, in order not to harm someone in gun fire, did nothing.

The police have no choice, it is part of the job description, they have to put their lives on the line every time they go out to a call like this. And as long as people who decide to use a firearm to try to get what they want, be it loaded or not, put themselves and others at risk.

a reply to: GoOfYFoOt
According to the article, the officers did not have their firearms pulled, rather they tried to taze the person first. The person was unaffected by the non lethal force, and thus the police had to go up to the next level.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

It might not seem like it but I do get what you're saying and the police absolutely have the right to defend themselves but what if the act of the tazer made the suspect twitch and start to raise the weapon just from the muscle spasms. Is that still a reason to kill them? It might be I guess but I would still dispute it as a member of their family. I really do try to see things from both sides and I would rather wait until all the facts are out but sometimes people as a whole are going to react based on what they know/have experienced.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt
According to the article, the officers did not have their firearms pulled, rather they tried to taze the person first. The person was unaffected by the non lethal force, and thus the police had to go up to the next level.

I am in no way, questioning or second guessing, the officer's decision to fire!

I wasn't there. I don't know what he saw or perceived to make that call.

What I do know...Is that he did fire...Nine times...At one person...But his bullets hit three! Therein lies my concern.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie

and those that day they can't shoot, hitting 5 out of 9 times your target in a situation like this where people are moving isn't all that bad. it's not like they were all standing still in one spot, they were probably zigin and zagin falling, diving for cover.

What are you saying??? that's fecking hilarious. However a person died.
The rest of your post only proves guns are a bit of a bollocks.

a reply to: thov420
I do not think that if a person is hit with a tazer, they will be holding onto anything. And normally, from all video's most people when they get tazed, they end up on the ground. According to the article, due to the suspects clothing it had no effects on him. So that tends to rule out the tazer making him twitch and raise the gun.

a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

When you fire a weapon like that and are having to move, you do not hit the same spot every time. That is normal, if you look at a firing range and the targets, one can see the spread of a weapon, even if the person is not moving, the aim is always off by and never in the same spot.