Another Police Shooting when dude has his hands in the air

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I have a good feeling that if he intended to shoot the person lying on the ground, he wouldn't have shot him in the leg.

According to the information available at this time, the police union has stated that the officer hit the therapist when trying to hit the other man. The other man, supposedly the intended target, was not hit according to the reports.

So if the officer was unable to hit his intended target and instead accidentally hit another person, why would you conclude that if he'd been aiming for the therapist he would be able to choose which portion of his body the bullet would strike? At this point it appears he wasn't the most accurate shot.

When is the average poster on this message board going to read for comprehension? You posted the same shit other people posted AGAIN.

My statement stands on it's own.

Your statement is silly. The officer who shot, assuming the statements put out by the union are not lies (and that the media reports of those statements are not lies), completely missed his target, in fact hitting a different target accidentally. That being the case, while he might have AIMED at something other than the therapist's leg, there's no reason to assume he'd have hit anything in particular. Based on what we know at the moment, he could have hit any portion of the therapist or none at all were he trying to hit him.

You do realize that information was not available at the time I made my post. Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly?

Actually, it was. Go look at post #265. g5000 posted a link about the PBA claiming the officer was shooting at the autistic man. Your post saying, "I have a good feeling that if he intended to shoot the person lying on the ground, he wouldn't have shot him in the leg." was post #294, about 45 minutes after g5000's post. I'm not sure if anyone else brought up that the officer was supposedly shooting at the autistic man before that, I didn't check further back.

Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly?

No. You should feel silly because you don't seem to know how these posts are organized. Just admit that you went off half-cocked and decided to push a position that was stupid simply because you have poor reading skills.

 

[Montrovant]

According to the information available at this time, the police union has stated that the officer hit the therapist when trying to hit the other man. The other man, supposedly the intended target, was not hit according to the reports.

So if the officer was unable to hit his intended target and instead accidentally hit another person, why would you conclude that if he'd been aiming for the therapist he would be able to choose which portion of his body the bullet would strike? At this point it appears he wasn't the most accurate shot.

When is the average poster on this message board going to read for comprehension? You posted the same shit other people posted AGAIN.

My statement stands on it's own.

Your statement is silly. The officer who shot, assuming the statements put out by the union are not lies (and that the media reports of those statements are not lies), completely missed his target, in fact hitting a different target accidentally. That being the case, while he might have AIMED at something other than the therapist's leg, there's no reason to assume he'd have hit anything in particular. Based on what we know at the moment, he could have hit any portion of the therapist or none at all were he trying to hit him.

You do realize that information was not available at the time I made my post. Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly?

Actually, it was. Go look at post #265. g5000 posted a link about the PBA claiming the officer was shooting at the autistic man. Your post saying, "I have a good feeling that if he intended to shoot the person lying on the ground, he wouldn't have shot him in the leg." was post #294, about 45 minutes after g5000's post. I'm not sure if anyone else brought up that the officer was supposedly shooting at the autistic man before that, I didn't check further back.

Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly?

No. You should feel silly because you don't seem to know how these posts are organized. Just admit that you went off half-cocked and decided to push a position that was stupid simply because you have poor reading skills.

Don't know how they are organized?

Not only are they numbered, but they have time stamps for when they are posted.

You are the one who pushed the position that an officer who not only missed his intended target, but hit another target accidentally, would be able to determine which portion of the therapist's anatomy he would have hit were he shooting at him.

Hell, even if you didn't know about the union's statement on the shooting, your own post is saying that the officer didn't intend to shoot the therapist. So you are saying someone who shoots an unintended target would have been able to hit that same person where he wanted to if the shot were intentional? And you have the gall to denigrate the reading skills of others.....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When is the average poster on this message board going to read for comprehension? You posted the same shit other people posted AGAIN.

My statement stands on it's own.

Your statement is silly. The officer who shot, assuming the statements put out by the union are not lies (and that the media reports of those statements are not lies), completely missed his target, in fact hitting a different target accidentally. That being the case, while he might have AIMED at something other than the therapist's leg, there's no reason to assume he'd have hit anything in particular. Based on what we know at the moment, he could have hit any portion of the therapist or none at all were he trying to hit him.

You do realize that information was not available at the time I made my post. Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly?

Actually, it was. Go look at post #265. g5000 posted a link about the PBA claiming the officer was shooting at the autistic man. Your post saying, "I have a good feeling that if he intended to shoot the person lying on the ground, he wouldn't have shot him in the leg." was post #294, about 45 minutes after g5000's post. I'm not sure if anyone else brought up that the officer was supposedly shooting at the autistic man before that, I didn't check further back.

Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly?

No. You should feel silly because you don't seem to know how these posts are organized. Just admit that you went off half-cocked and decided to push a position that was stupid simply because you have poor reading skills.

Don't know how they are organized?

Not only are they numbered, but they have time stamps for when they are posted.

You are the one who pushed the position that an officer who not only missed his intended target, but hit another target accidentally, would be able to determine which portion of the therapist's anatomy he would have hit were he shooting at him.

Hell, even if you didn't know about the union's statement on the shooting, your own post is saying that the officer didn't intend to shoot the therapist. So you are saying someone who shoots an unintended target would have been able to hit that same person where he wanted to if the shot were intentional? And you have the gall to denigrate the reading skills of others.....

As a well-qualified marksman, I know exactly what I am talking about. Your familiarity with shooting apparently reaches only as far as shooting your mouth off or shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm done. Let your ignorant rant end lest you continue to embarrass yourself..

 

[Montrovant]

Your statement is silly. The officer who shot, assuming the statements put out by the union are not lies (and that the media reports of those statements are not lies), completely missed his target, in fact hitting a different target accidentally. That being the case, while he might have AIMED at something other than the therapist's leg, there's no reason to assume he'd have hit anything in particular. Based on what we know at the moment, he could have hit any portion of the therapist or none at all were he trying to hit him.

You do realize that information was not available at the time I made my post. Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly?

Actually, it was. Go look at post #265. g5000 posted a link about the PBA claiming the officer was shooting at the autistic man. Your post saying, "I have a good feeling that if he intended to shoot the person lying on the ground, he wouldn't have shot him in the leg." was post #294, about 45 minutes after g5000's post. I'm not sure if anyone else brought up that the officer was supposedly shooting at the autistic man before that, I didn't check further back.

Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly?

No. You should feel silly because you don't seem to know how these posts are organized. Just admit that you went off half-cocked and decided to push a position that was stupid simply because you have poor reading skills.

Don't know how they are organized?

Not only are they numbered, but they have time stamps for when they are posted.

You are the one who pushed the position that an officer who not only missed his intended target, but hit another target accidentally, would be able to determine which portion of the therapist's anatomy he would have hit were he shooting at him.

Hell, even if you didn't know about the union's statement on the shooting, your own post is saying that the officer didn't intend to shoot the therapist. So you are saying someone who shoots an unintended target would have been able to hit that same person where he wanted to if the shot were intentional? And you have the gall to denigrate the reading skills of others.....

As a well-qualified marksman, I know exactly what I am talking about. Your familiarity with shooting apparently reaches only as far as shooting your mouth off or shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm done. Let your ignorant rant end lest you continue to embarrass yourself..

Let's review the logic of your statement. You said that if the officer had intended to shoot the therapist, he wouldn't have hit him in the leg. So, he wasn't trying to hit the therapist, yet he did anyway. What was he aiming at? According to the union statement, it was the autistic man. However, all the reports are that the autistic man was not shot. Apparently the officer missed what he was shooting at entirely. From the article posted by g5000 (you know, the one you hinted wasn't actually posted 46 minutes before your statement?), "The officer, Rivera said, had been aiming for the patient beside Kinsey, whom he thought posed a danger.". North Miami shooting: Officer who shot man is named - CNN.com

We apparently have an officer who not only missed the target he was aiming at but hit another one entirely. As a well-qualified marksman, perhaps you can explain why you think the officer would be that inaccurate when attempting to hit the autistic man yet would be more accurate if attempting to hit the therapist?

So which is it? Is the officer an accurate shooter who is able to determine which part of the therapist he would hit, or an inaccurate shooter who hits the wrong target? Perhaps you believe he is only accurate when intending to hit therapists?

We seem to agree that hitting the therapist was unintentional. I'd be happy to hear a well-qualified marksman explain why the officer would have been much more accurate firing at the therapist than the autistic man.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You do realize that information was not available at the time I made my post. Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly?

Actually, it was. Go look at post #265. g5000 posted a link about the PBA claiming the officer was shooting at the autistic man. Your post saying, "I have a good feeling that if he intended to shoot the person lying on the ground, he wouldn't have shot him in the leg." was post #294, about 45 minutes after g5000's post. I'm not sure if anyone else brought up that the officer was supposedly shooting at the autistic man before that, I didn't check further back.

Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly?

No. You should feel silly because you don't seem to know how these posts are organized. Just admit that you went off half-cocked and decided to push a position that was stupid simply because you have poor reading skills.

Don't know how they are organized?

Not only are they numbered, but they have time stamps for when they are posted.

You are the one who pushed the position that an officer who not only missed his intended target, but hit another target accidentally, would be able to determine which portion of the therapist's anatomy he would have hit were he shooting at him.

Hell, even if you didn't know about the union's statement on the shooting, your own post is saying that the officer didn't intend to shoot the therapist. So you are saying someone who shoots an unintended target would have been able to hit that same person where he wanted to if the shot were intentional? And you have the gall to denigrate the reading skills of others.....

As a well-qualified marksman, I know exactly what I am talking about. Your familiarity with shooting apparently reaches only as far as shooting your mouth off or shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm done. Let your ignorant rant end lest you continue to embarrass yourself..

Let's review the logic of your statement. You said that if the officer had intended to shoot the therapist, he wouldn't have hit him in the leg. So, he wasn't trying to hit the therapist, yet he did anyway. What was he aiming at? According to the union statement, it was the autistic man. However, all the reports are that the autistic man was not shot. Apparently the officer missed what he was shooting at entirely. From the article posted by g5000 (you know, the one you hinted wasn't actually posted 46 minutes before your statement?), "The officer, Rivera said, had been aiming for the patient beside Kinsey, whom he thought posed a danger.". North Miami shooting: Officer who shot man is named - CNN.com

We apparently have an officer who not only missed the target he was aiming at but hit another one entirely. As a well-qualified marksman, perhaps you can explain why you think the officer would be that inaccurate when attempting to hit the autistic man yet would be more accurate if attempting to hit the therapist?

So which is it? Is the officer an accurate shooter who is able to determine which part of the therapist he would hit, or an inaccurate shooter who hits the wrong target? Perhaps you believe he is only accurate when intending to hit therapists?

We seem to agree that hitting the therapist was unintentional. I'd be happy to hear a well-qualified marksman explain why the officer would have been much more accurate firing at the therapist than the autistic man.

Once again, you are Monday morning quarterbacking the situation, using information that was not available at the time. Just shut up! Your quest to prove your superiority is an epic failure.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Shot the guy, on administrative leave while investigation happens.

Prediction:
No charges, my bad....Prayers and thoughts. x2 with a cherry on top

Well what do you know. No charges and he did it on accident. Thoughts and Prayers....Thoughts and prayers.

 

[Montrovant]

Actually, it was. Go look at post #265. g5000 posted a link about the PBA claiming the officer was shooting at the autistic man. Your post saying, "I have a good feeling that if he intended to shoot the person lying on the ground, he wouldn't have shot him in the leg." was post #294, about 45 minutes after g5000's post. I'm not sure if anyone else brought up that the officer was supposedly shooting at the autistic man before that, I didn't check further back.

Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly?

No. You should feel silly because you don't seem to know how these posts are organized. Just admit that you went off half-cocked and decided to push a position that was stupid simply because you have poor reading skills.

Don't know how they are organized?

Not only are they numbered, but they have time stamps for when they are posted.

You are the one who pushed the position that an officer who not only missed his intended target, but hit another target accidentally, would be able to determine which portion of the therapist's anatomy he would have hit were he shooting at him.

Hell, even if you didn't know about the union's statement on the shooting, your own post is saying that the officer didn't intend to shoot the therapist. So you are saying someone who shoots an unintended target would have been able to hit that same person where he wanted to if the shot were intentional? And you have the gall to denigrate the reading skills of others.....

As a well-qualified marksman, I know exactly what I am talking about. Your familiarity with shooting apparently reaches only as far as shooting your mouth off or shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm done. Let your ignorant rant end lest you continue to embarrass yourself..

Let's review the logic of your statement. You said that if the officer had intended to shoot the therapist, he wouldn't have hit him in the leg. So, he wasn't trying to hit the therapist, yet he did anyway. What was he aiming at? According to the union statement, it was the autistic man. However, all the reports are that the autistic man was not shot. Apparently the officer missed what he was shooting at entirely. From the article posted by g5000 (you know, the one you hinted wasn't actually posted 46 minutes before your statement?), "The officer, Rivera said, had been aiming for the patient beside Kinsey, whom he thought posed a danger.". North Miami shooting: Officer who shot man is named - CNN.com

We apparently have an officer who not only missed the target he was aiming at but hit another one entirely. As a well-qualified marksman, perhaps you can explain why you think the officer would be that inaccurate when attempting to hit the autistic man yet would be more accurate if attempting to hit the therapist?

So which is it? Is the officer an accurate shooter who is able to determine which part of the therapist he would hit, or an inaccurate shooter who hits the wrong target? Perhaps you believe he is only accurate when intending to hit therapists?

We seem to agree that hitting the therapist was unintentional. I'd be happy to hear a well-qualified marksman explain why the officer would have been much more accurate firing at the therapist than the autistic man.

Once again, you are Monday morning quarterbacking the situation, using information that was not available at the time. Just shut up! Your quest to prove your superiority is an epic failure.

Except, of course, that I've proven the information was available. It was available in this very thread.

I think the failure here is yours.

 

[Montrovant]

Actually, it was. Go look at post #265. g5000 posted a link about the PBA claiming the officer was shooting at the autistic man. Your post saying, "I have a good feeling that if he intended to shoot the person lying on the ground, he wouldn't have shot him in the leg." was post #294, about 45 minutes after g5000's post. I'm not sure if anyone else brought up that the officer was supposedly shooting at the autistic man before that, I didn't check further back.

Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly?

No. You should feel silly because you don't seem to know how these posts are organized. Just admit that you went off half-cocked and decided to push a position that was stupid simply because you have poor reading skills.

Don't know how they are organized?

Not only are they numbered, but they have time stamps for when they are posted.

You are the one who pushed the position that an officer who not only missed his intended target, but hit another target accidentally, would be able to determine which portion of the therapist's anatomy he would have hit were he shooting at him.

Hell, even if you didn't know about the union's statement on the shooting, your own post is saying that the officer didn't intend to shoot the therapist. So you are saying someone who shoots an unintended target would have been able to hit that same person where he wanted to if the shot were intentional? And you have the gall to denigrate the reading skills of others.....

As a well-qualified marksman, I know exactly what I am talking about. Your familiarity with shooting apparently reaches only as far as shooting your mouth off or shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm done. Let your ignorant rant end lest you continue to embarrass yourself..

Let's review the logic of your statement. You said that if the officer had intended to shoot the therapist, he wouldn't have hit him in the leg. So, he wasn't trying to hit the therapist, yet he did anyway. What was he aiming at? According to the union statement, it was the autistic man. However, all the reports are that the autistic man was not shot. Apparently the officer missed what he was shooting at entirely. From the article posted by g5000 (you know, the one you hinted wasn't actually posted 46 minutes before your statement?), "The officer, Rivera said, had been aiming for the patient beside Kinsey, whom he thought posed a danger.". North Miami shooting: Officer who shot man is named - CNN.com

We apparently have an officer who not only missed the target he was aiming at but hit another one entirely. As a well-qualified marksman, perhaps you can explain why you think the officer would be that inaccurate when attempting to hit the autistic man yet would be more accurate if attempting to hit the therapist?

So which is it? Is the officer an accurate shooter who is able to determine which part of the therapist he would hit, or an inaccurate shooter who hits the wrong target? Perhaps you believe he is only accurate when intending to hit therapists?

We seem to agree that hitting the therapist was unintentional. I'd be happy to hear a well-qualified marksman explain why the officer would have been much more accurate firing at the therapist than the autistic man.

Once again, you are Monday morning quarterbacking the situation, using information that was not available at the time. Just shut up! Your quest to prove your superiority is an epic failure.

And, even if we ignore the information about who the officer was attempting to hit which was available before your post, the post itself is pretty senseless all on its own. You said this :

I have a good feeling that if he intended to shoot the person lying on the ground, he wouldn't have shot him in the leg.

If the officer hit someone unintentionally, as your statement suggests, what would make you think his aim would be better when he actually tried to hit that person?

 

[Borillar]

Then patted him down, cuffed him and let him bleed for twenty minutes until the 'rescue team' arrived, according to reports I've read.

What else could they do? ........

Stop the fucking bleeding? Call an ambulance? Apply first aid and maybe a little common sense?

 

[hadit]

If it comes out that the shooting was unjustified (not in the court of public opinion either) yes I'll wager on it.

No, I mean do you want to wager on whether or not he will face any charges. I say he will not face any charges. Want to bet? I'll put your choice of signatures on my profile if I lose

How the heck can I bet on something without getting/seeing all the details?

By using the details you have available.

Real question: Want to bet on it?

With 50/50 odds? That's a flip of the coin. Nah I'll wait

Its actually 98% to 2%. 98% of cops get no charges ever. So I'm betting he wont. Want that sweet 2% chance?

98% of cops or 98% of cops who shoot someone? Clarify and give sources since you repeat this multiple times.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

So now, cops can shoot people and just say it was an accident.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

There couldn't have been any less of a threat there.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. You should feel silly because you don't seem to know how these posts are organized. Just admit that you went off half-cocked and decided to push a position that was stupid simply because you have poor reading skills.

Don't know how they are organized?

Not only are they numbered, but they have time stamps for when they are posted.

You are the one who pushed the position that an officer who not only missed his intended target, but hit another target accidentally, would be able to determine which portion of the therapist's anatomy he would have hit were he shooting at him.

Hell, even if you didn't know about the union's statement on the shooting, your own post is saying that the officer didn't intend to shoot the therapist. So you are saying someone who shoots an unintended target would have been able to hit that same person where he wanted to if the shot were intentional? And you have the gall to denigrate the reading skills of others.....

As a well-qualified marksman, I know exactly what I am talking about. Your familiarity with shooting apparently reaches only as far as shooting your mouth off or shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm done. Let your ignorant rant end lest you continue to embarrass yourself..

Let's review the logic of your statement. You said that if the officer had intended to shoot the therapist, he wouldn't have hit him in the leg. So, he wasn't trying to hit the therapist, yet he did anyway. What was he aiming at? According to the union statement, it was the autistic man. However, all the reports are that the autistic man was not shot. Apparently the officer missed what he was shooting at entirely. From the article posted by g5000 (you know, the one you hinted wasn't actually posted 46 minutes before your statement?), "The officer, Rivera said, had been aiming for the patient beside Kinsey, whom he thought posed a danger.". North Miami shooting: Officer who shot man is named - CNN.com

We apparently have an officer who not only missed the target he was aiming at but hit another one entirely. As a well-qualified marksman, perhaps you can explain why you think the officer would be that inaccurate when attempting to hit the autistic man yet would be more accurate if attempting to hit the therapist?

So which is it? Is the officer an accurate shooter who is able to determine which part of the therapist he would hit, or an inaccurate shooter who hits the wrong target? Perhaps you believe he is only accurate when intending to hit therapists?

We seem to agree that hitting the therapist was unintentional. I'd be happy to hear a well-qualified marksman explain why the officer would have been much more accurate firing at the therapist than the autistic man.

Once again, you are Monday morning quarterbacking the situation, using information that was not available at the time. Just shut up! Your quest to prove your superiority is an epic failure.

Except, of course, that I've proven the information was available. It was available in this very thread.

I think the failure here is yours.

The fact that I explained that I had not read that information at the time of my post still escapes you? You really are looking for recognition as a Class A moron, aren't you?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. You should feel silly because you don't seem to know how these posts are organized. Just admit that you went off half-cocked and decided to push a position that was stupid simply because you have poor reading skills.

Don't know how they are organized?

Not only are they numbered, but they have time stamps for when they are posted.

You are the one who pushed the position that an officer who not only missed his intended target, but hit another target accidentally, would be able to determine which portion of the therapist's anatomy he would have hit were he shooting at him.

Hell, even if you didn't know about the union's statement on the shooting, your own post is saying that the officer didn't intend to shoot the therapist. So you are saying someone who shoots an unintended target would have been able to hit that same person where he wanted to if the shot were intentional? And you have the gall to denigrate the reading skills of others.....

As a well-qualified marksman, I know exactly what I am talking about. Your familiarity with shooting apparently reaches only as far as shooting your mouth off or shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm done. Let your ignorant rant end lest you continue to embarrass yourself..

Let's review the logic of your statement. You said that if the officer had intended to shoot the therapist, he wouldn't have hit him in the leg. So, he wasn't trying to hit the therapist, yet he did anyway. What was he aiming at? According to the union statement, it was the autistic man. However, all the reports are that the autistic man was not shot. Apparently the officer missed what he was shooting at entirely. From the article posted by g5000 (you know, the one you hinted wasn't actually posted 46 minutes before your statement?), "The officer, Rivera said, had been aiming for the patient beside Kinsey, whom he thought posed a danger.". North Miami shooting: Officer who shot man is named - CNN.com

We apparently have an officer who not only missed the target he was aiming at but hit another one entirely. As a well-qualified marksman, perhaps you can explain why you think the officer would be that inaccurate when attempting to hit the autistic man yet would be more accurate if attempting to hit the therapist?

So which is it? Is the officer an accurate shooter who is able to determine which part of the therapist he would hit, or an inaccurate shooter who hits the wrong target? Perhaps you believe he is only accurate when intending to hit therapists?

We seem to agree that hitting the therapist was unintentional. I'd be happy to hear a well-qualified marksman explain why the officer would have been much more accurate firing at the therapist than the autistic man.

Once again, you are Monday morning quarterbacking the situation, using information that was not available at the time. Just shut up! Your quest to prove your superiority is an epic failure.

And, even if we ignore the information about who the officer was attempting to hit which was available before your post, the post itself is pretty senseless all on its own. You said this :

I have a good feeling that if he intended to shoot the person lying on the ground, he wouldn't have shot him in the leg.

If the officer hit someone unintentionally, as your statement suggests, what would make you think his aim would be better when he actually tried to hit that person?

You are too stupid to carry on an intelligent conversation. Have a nice life, idiot!

 

[Montrovant]

Don't know how they are organized?

Not only are they numbered, but they have time stamps for when they are posted.

You are the one who pushed the position that an officer who not only missed his intended target, but hit another target accidentally, would be able to determine which portion of the therapist's anatomy he would have hit were he shooting at him.

Hell, even if you didn't know about the union's statement on the shooting, your own post is saying that the officer didn't intend to shoot the therapist. So you are saying someone who shoots an unintended target would have been able to hit that same person where he wanted to if the shot were intentional? And you have the gall to denigrate the reading skills of others.....

As a well-qualified marksman, I know exactly what I am talking about. Your familiarity with shooting apparently reaches only as far as shooting your mouth off or shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm done. Let your ignorant rant end lest you continue to embarrass yourself..

Let's review the logic of your statement. You said that if the officer had intended to shoot the therapist, he wouldn't have hit him in the leg. So, he wasn't trying to hit the therapist, yet he did anyway. What was he aiming at? According to the union statement, it was the autistic man. However, all the reports are that the autistic man was not shot. Apparently the officer missed what he was shooting at entirely. From the article posted by g5000 (you know, the one you hinted wasn't actually posted 46 minutes before your statement?), "The officer, Rivera said, had been aiming for the patient beside Kinsey, whom he thought posed a danger.". North Miami shooting: Officer who shot man is named - CNN.com

We apparently have an officer who not only missed the target he was aiming at but hit another one entirely. As a well-qualified marksman, perhaps you can explain why you think the officer would be that inaccurate when attempting to hit the autistic man yet would be more accurate if attempting to hit the therapist?

So which is it? Is the officer an accurate shooter who is able to determine which part of the therapist he would hit, or an inaccurate shooter who hits the wrong target? Perhaps you believe he is only accurate when intending to hit therapists?

We seem to agree that hitting the therapist was unintentional. I'd be happy to hear a well-qualified marksman explain why the officer would have been much more accurate firing at the therapist than the autistic man.

Once again, you are Monday morning quarterbacking the situation, using information that was not available at the time. Just shut up! Your quest to prove your superiority is an epic failure.

Except, of course, that I've proven the information was available. It was available in this very thread.

I think the failure here is yours.

The fact that I explained that I had not read that information at the time of my post still escapes you? You really are looking for recognition as a Class A moron, aren't you?

If you actually used facts, it would help.

Here's what you actually said :

You do realize that information was not available at the time I made my post.

You didn't say you hadn't read it but that it wasn't available. I have pointed out, repeatedly, that it was in fact available, that it was posted about 3/4 of an hour before you made your statement about the officer hitting something other than the leg. Those are actual facts, for which I have provided proof.

See how that works?

 

[Montrovant]

Don't know how they are organized?

Not only are they numbered, but they have time stamps for when they are posted.

You are the one who pushed the position that an officer who not only missed his intended target, but hit another target accidentally, would be able to determine which portion of the therapist's anatomy he would have hit were he shooting at him.

Hell, even if you didn't know about the union's statement on the shooting, your own post is saying that the officer didn't intend to shoot the therapist. So you are saying someone who shoots an unintended target would have been able to hit that same person where he wanted to if the shot were intentional? And you have the gall to denigrate the reading skills of others.....

As a well-qualified marksman, I know exactly what I am talking about. Your familiarity with shooting apparently reaches only as far as shooting your mouth off or shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm done. Let your ignorant rant end lest you continue to embarrass yourself..

Let's review the logic of your statement. You said that if the officer had intended to shoot the therapist, he wouldn't have hit him in the leg. So, he wasn't trying to hit the therapist, yet he did anyway. What was he aiming at? According to the union statement, it was the autistic man. However, all the reports are that the autistic man was not shot. Apparently the officer missed what he was shooting at entirely. From the article posted by g5000 (you know, the one you hinted wasn't actually posted 46 minutes before your statement?), "The officer, Rivera said, had been aiming for the patient beside Kinsey, whom he thought posed a danger.". North Miami shooting: Officer who shot man is named - CNN.com

We apparently have an officer who not only missed the target he was aiming at but hit another one entirely. As a well-qualified marksman, perhaps you can explain why you think the officer would be that inaccurate when attempting to hit the autistic man yet would be more accurate if attempting to hit the therapist?

So which is it? Is the officer an accurate shooter who is able to determine which part of the therapist he would hit, or an inaccurate shooter who hits the wrong target? Perhaps you believe he is only accurate when intending to hit therapists?

We seem to agree that hitting the therapist was unintentional. I'd be happy to hear a well-qualified marksman explain why the officer would have been much more accurate firing at the therapist than the autistic man.

Once again, you are Monday morning quarterbacking the situation, using information that was not available at the time. Just shut up! Your quest to prove your superiority is an epic failure.

And, even if we ignore the information about who the officer was attempting to hit which was available before your post, the post itself is pretty senseless all on its own. You said this :

I have a good feeling that if he intended to shoot the person lying on the ground, he wouldn't have shot him in the leg.

If the officer hit someone unintentionally, as your statement suggests, what would make you think his aim would be better when he actually tried to hit that person?

You are too stupid to carry on an intelligent conversation. Have a nice life, idiot!

In other words, you refuse to admit to a simple error or poorly worded post. Gotcha.