But most of the cops are good. We swear it.

[SavannahMann]

We all know the stories of cops who are involved in questionable shootings, or outright bad shootings. We all know that cops tell us that they can’t hesitate, and we can’t understand what they are going through. Yet, what happens when a cop doesn’t shoot someone?

What Happened When A White Cop Decided Not to Shoot a Black Man

The cop is fired, and labeled a coward. Officer Mader of the Weirton police department got the call nobody should want. There was a problem at an address, the woman called and asked for help, and then hung up. She did not answer on the call back. Mader arrived and found the Ex Boyfriend outside, with his hand behind him. Mader told him to show the hands, common, standard even to now. But the man had a gun, and the Ex Girlfriend told the dispatcher that the man had dropped the magazine, and was going to get the cops to shoot him. Suicide by cop. The dispatcher did not report this, but Mader knew what was going on. He could see it, sense it. He got behind cover, and pulled his own pistol, and realized the man was trying to suicide by cop. He knew it.

Then two more officers showed up, and one of them fired four times, missing the distraught man all four. The fifth shot hit, and killed the man. OK, so far, we have a bad situation, but a justifiable shooting. The man was waving the gun around, and the cops didn’t know that he was trying to suicide by cop. Mader felt it, sensed it, and just knew it in his bones.

So what happened? Was the guy who took the shot fired? Nope. Without even talking to Mader, the Captain, and the Chief of Police made the decision to fire Mader for NOT shooting a distraught man who was intending to suicide by cop. Mader was labeled a coward, his reputation destroyed, by people who never even interviewed him. Not once talking to him to get his side. Why?

We keep hearing about the vast majority of cops who are good. Who are doing a tough job the best way they can. Yet in this case, while I can’t fault the second and third officer arriving as they did, and going with what they saw, I can question the decision to fire the first officer on the scene, the one who should have been in control, but wasn’t because the other officers had more time. The Rookie knew it was a suicide by cop, but did not want to oblige the man.

The Chief admitted he had never investigated an officer involved shooting. He had no idea what he was doing, and no idea what the officers were taught to do at the academy concerning de-escalation of the situation. So why was Mader fired? In an effort to head off the lawsuit. The inevitable lawsuit since the officers did not have all the information the Dispatcher had gotten, about the intentions of the man. That which Mader realized when he was talking to the guy.

With that information, a man could have gotten the help he needed. Without it, the police were unarmed as far as understanding the situation. The police could have helped a man, saved a life, and saved themselves a lot of trouble. Instead, they went after the one who didn’t want to shoot, because he wanted to honestly help. The good cop was sacrificed, thrown away to protect the others. One comment from his training officer is interesting. Mader understood to always have the back of a fellow cop. Cops first, all of us a distant second. A very distant second.

So where are all those good cops, the ones who would insure that truth, and doing the right thing matters? Apparently there weren’t any in charge of the department.

 

[harmonica]

I don't see any statistics to back up your claim

 

[Dan Stubbs]

We all know the stories of cops who are involved in questionable shootings, or outright bad shootings. We all know that cops tell us that they can’t hesitate, and we can’t understand what they are going through. Yet, what happens when a cop doesn’t shoot someone?

What Happened When A White Cop Decided Not to Shoot a Black Man

The cop is fired, and labeled a coward. Officer Mader of the Weirton police department got the call nobody should want. There was a problem at an address, the woman called and asked for help, and then hung up. She did not answer on the call back. Mader arrived and found the Ex Boyfriend outside, with his hand behind him. Mader told him to show the hands, common, standard even to now. But the man had a gun, and the Ex Girlfriend told the dispatcher that the man had dropped the magazine, and was going to get the cops to shoot him. Suicide by cop. The dispatcher did not report this, but Mader knew what was going on. He could see it, sense it. He got behind cover, and pulled his own pistol, and realized the man was trying to suicide by cop. He knew it.

Then two more officers showed up, and one of them fired four times, missing the distraught man all four. The fifth shot hit, and killed the man. OK, so far, we have a bad situation, but a justifiable shooting. The man was waving the gun around, and the cops didn’t know that he was trying to suicide by cop. Mader felt it, sensed it, and just knew it in his bones.

So what happened? Was the guy who took the shot fired? Nope. Without even talking to Mader, the Captain, and the Chief of Police made the decision to fire Mader for NOT shooting a distraught man who was intending to suicide by cop. Mader was labeled a coward, his reputation destroyed, by people who never even interviewed him. Not once talking to him to get his side. Why?

We keep hearing about the vast majority of cops who are good. Who are doing a tough job the best way they can. Yet in this case, while I can’t fault the second and third officer arriving as they did, and going with what they saw, I can question the decision to fire the first officer on the scene, the one who should have been in control, but wasn’t because the other officers had more time. The Rookie knew it was a suicide by cop, but did not want to oblige the man.

The Chief admitted he had never investigated an officer involved shooting. He had no idea what he was doing, and no idea what the officers were taught to do at the academy concerning de-escalation of the situation. So why was Mader fired? In an effort to head off the lawsuit. The inevitable lawsuit since the officers did not have all the information the Dispatcher had gotten, about the intentions of the man. That which Mader realized when he was talking to the guy.

With that information, a man could have gotten the help he needed. Without it, the police were unarmed as far as understanding the situation. The police could have helped a man, saved a life, and saved themselves a lot of trouble. Instead, they went after the one who didn’t want to shoot, because he wanted to honestly help. The good cop was sacrificed, thrown away to protect the others. One comment from his training officer is interesting. Mader understood to always have the back of a fellow cop. Cops first, all of us a distant second. A very distant second.

So where are all those good cops, the ones who would insure that truth, and doing the right thing matters? Apparently there weren’t any in charge of the department.

I am a old cop, but to me it seems like to many LEOs at the scene make the matter worst. In the OLD days it was man on man and most of the time we were at least 6 foot tall or close to it, most of us were Vets, and some had been under fire. We were trained to take down and control a suspect. Now days I have not a clue what todays LEOs have to deal with, but 9 guys taking down a suspect seems to be overkill. Whatever happened to the first man on the scene was the command LEO the rest followed his lead.

 

[harmonica]

Baker screamed at Mader to take cover, and all three officers continued to yell at Williams to drop the gun. Williams then raised the gun to shoulder height, walked toward the arriving officers, and swung the gun back and forth, from Mader to Kuzma and Baker and back to Mader again.

 

[sparky]

I served in ems & worked with leo's for decades, in my later years i actually worked with what was the next generation of cops , sons of those i started out with.

It's a tough job, and one realizes it standing behind them ,watching them deal with the ugly side of humainity.....even had to deal w/azzholes they shot

these days it's all about targeting the few bad apples , the one's who crossed the line, gore porn media .....utubes, etc.....

we don't read about the cops who went the extra mile as a public servant, the one's who saved a life, desculated a situation, stepped into an unstable situation...or <sadly> had to knock on some parents door w/bad news....

~S~

 

[OnePercenter]

I don't see any statistics to back up your claim

How about the $175K the city paid?

 

[AveryJarhman]

Propublic reports: "The Weirton Police Department, like almost every other, has a policy on the use of lethal force: If someone is a threat to life — a civilian’s or an officer’s — an officer can shoot to kill."

Whoa! I could be wrong though I seriously doubt any American police department has a "SHOOT TO KILL" policy.

The NYCPD trained me "SHOOT TO STOP", not to kill.

However the dept also trained me to aim for "center mass" if I was placed in circumstances requiring the use of Deadly Physical Force.

Aiming for center mass increased the chances of not missing a target, AND lessened the chances an innocent person would be struck by an errant projectile.

Rest in Peace, Mr. R.J. Williams.

​

Peace.

 

[Andylusion]

We all know the stories of cops who are involved in questionable shootings, or outright bad shootings. We all know that cops tell us that they can’t hesitate, and we can’t understand what they are going through. Yet, what happens when a cop doesn’t shoot someone?

What Happened When A White Cop Decided Not to Shoot a Black Man

The cop is fired, and labeled a coward. Officer Mader of the Weirton police department got the call nobody should want. There was a problem at an address, the woman called and asked for help, and then hung up. She did not answer on the call back. Mader arrived and found the Ex Boyfriend outside, with his hand behind him. Mader told him to show the hands, common, standard even to now. But the man had a gun, and the Ex Girlfriend told the dispatcher that the man had dropped the magazine, and was going to get the cops to shoot him. Suicide by cop. The dispatcher did not report this, but Mader knew what was going on. He could see it, sense it. He got behind cover, and pulled his own pistol, and realized the man was trying to suicide by cop. He knew it.

Then two more officers showed up, and one of them fired four times, missing the distraught man all four. The fifth shot hit, and killed the man. OK, so far, we have a bad situation, but a justifiable shooting. The man was waving the gun around, and the cops didn’t know that he was trying to suicide by cop. Mader felt it, sensed it, and just knew it in his bones.

So what happened? Was the guy who took the shot fired? Nope. Without even talking to Mader, the Captain, and the Chief of Police made the decision to fire Mader for NOT shooting a distraught man who was intending to suicide by cop. Mader was labeled a coward, his reputation destroyed, by people who never even interviewed him. Not once talking to him to get his side. Why?

We keep hearing about the vast majority of cops who are good. Who are doing a tough job the best way they can. Yet in this case, while I can’t fault the second and third officer arriving as they did, and going with what they saw, I can question the decision to fire the first officer on the scene, the one who should have been in control, but wasn’t because the other officers had more time. The Rookie knew it was a suicide by cop, but did not want to oblige the man.

The Chief admitted he had never investigated an officer involved shooting. He had no idea what he was doing, and no idea what the officers were taught to do at the academy concerning de-escalation of the situation. So why was Mader fired? In an effort to head off the lawsuit. The inevitable lawsuit since the officers did not have all the information the Dispatcher had gotten, about the intentions of the man. That which Mader realized when he was talking to the guy.

With that information, a man could have gotten the help he needed. Without it, the police were unarmed as far as understanding the situation. The police could have helped a man, saved a life, and saved themselves a lot of trouble. Instead, they went after the one who didn’t want to shoot, because he wanted to honestly help. The good cop was sacrificed, thrown away to protect the others. One comment from his training officer is interesting. Mader understood to always have the back of a fellow cop. Cops first, all of us a distant second. A very distant second.

So where are all those good cops, the ones who would insure that truth, and doing the right thing matters? Apparently there weren’t any in charge of the department.

Are you sure that is the reason? I think the reason real reason he was fired is because a intentionally armed and deadly man, could have killed someone while this officer did nothing.

I gotta tell you, if I was in that situation and my life was possibly in danger, and this guy refused to fire based on a hunch.... I would not want this guy working with me anymore.

It's the same reason that boot camp is designed to be stressful and hard. They want the people who are going to crack, to do so at boot camp, instead of in a war zone, because if they crack in the war zone, then everyone around him dies.

You can't have your police backup, when faced with a clearly dangerous situation, just decide "Hey I think his gun is unloaded and he's trying to suicide by cop!". NO. You are going to end up shot, because sparky refused to cover you based on a hunch? No.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't see any statistics to back up your claim

How about the $175K the city paid?

You think that proves something? A woman staring at her phone, walked into a bright orange ladder, and collected $160K. That proves nothing, except our court systems and laws are jacked up. It means we need to change the laws, and stop giving money for stupidity.

 

[SavannahMann]

We all know the stories of cops who are involved in questionable shootings, or outright bad shootings. We all know that cops tell us that they can’t hesitate, and we can’t understand what they are going through. Yet, what happens when a cop doesn’t shoot someone?

What Happened When A White Cop Decided Not to Shoot a Black Man

The cop is fired, and labeled a coward. Officer Mader of the Weirton police department got the call nobody should want. There was a problem at an address, the woman called and asked for help, and then hung up. She did not answer on the call back. Mader arrived and found the Ex Boyfriend outside, with his hand behind him. Mader told him to show the hands, common, standard even to now. But the man had a gun, and the Ex Girlfriend told the dispatcher that the man had dropped the magazine, and was going to get the cops to shoot him. Suicide by cop. The dispatcher did not report this, but Mader knew what was going on. He could see it, sense it. He got behind cover, and pulled his own pistol, and realized the man was trying to suicide by cop. He knew it.

Then two more officers showed up, and one of them fired four times, missing the distraught man all four. The fifth shot hit, and killed the man. OK, so far, we have a bad situation, but a justifiable shooting. The man was waving the gun around, and the cops didn’t know that he was trying to suicide by cop. Mader felt it, sensed it, and just knew it in his bones.

So what happened? Was the guy who took the shot fired? Nope. Without even talking to Mader, the Captain, and the Chief of Police made the decision to fire Mader for NOT shooting a distraught man who was intending to suicide by cop. Mader was labeled a coward, his reputation destroyed, by people who never even interviewed him. Not once talking to him to get his side. Why?

We keep hearing about the vast majority of cops who are good. Who are doing a tough job the best way they can. Yet in this case, while I can’t fault the second and third officer arriving as they did, and going with what they saw, I can question the decision to fire the first officer on the scene, the one who should have been in control, but wasn’t because the other officers had more time. The Rookie knew it was a suicide by cop, but did not want to oblige the man.

The Chief admitted he had never investigated an officer involved shooting. He had no idea what he was doing, and no idea what the officers were taught to do at the academy concerning de-escalation of the situation. So why was Mader fired? In an effort to head off the lawsuit. The inevitable lawsuit since the officers did not have all the information the Dispatcher had gotten, about the intentions of the man. That which Mader realized when he was talking to the guy.

With that information, a man could have gotten the help he needed. Without it, the police were unarmed as far as understanding the situation. The police could have helped a man, saved a life, and saved themselves a lot of trouble. Instead, they went after the one who didn’t want to shoot, because he wanted to honestly help. The good cop was sacrificed, thrown away to protect the others. One comment from his training officer is interesting. Mader understood to always have the back of a fellow cop. Cops first, all of us a distant second. A very distant second.

So where are all those good cops, the ones who would insure that truth, and doing the right thing matters? Apparently there weren’t any in charge of the department.

Are you sure that is the reason? I think the reason real reason he was fired is because a intentionally armed and deadly man, could have killed someone while this officer did nothing.

I gotta tell you, if I was in that situation and my life was possibly in danger, and this guy refused to fire based on a hunch.... I would not want this guy working with me anymore.

It's the same reason that boot camp is designed to be stressful and hard. They want the people who are going to crack, to do so at boot camp, instead of in a war zone, because if they crack in the war zone, then everyone around him dies.

You can't have your police backup, when faced with a clearly dangerous situation, just decide "Hey I think his gun is unloaded and he's trying to suicide by cop!". NO. You are going to end up shot, because sparky refused to cover you based on a hunch? No.

Well if you had read the article, you would know that this particular officer, before joining the police, had joined the Marines. He did Boot Camp, and a tour in Afghanistan. I’m pretty sure if he was going to freeze up, he would have done so long before he hung a badge on his chest.

Explain this to me if you can. Why is it that the hunch of the cop is not only acceptable, but must be taken as Gospel without question when pulling over a car, the cop felt something was suspicious, the baddie might have a gun, or in a thousand other incidents, but not when it comes to holding fire. Can you explain that to me? Why is it we are supposed to cheer when a cop shoots an unarmed guy who MIGHT be armed, but we are supposed to heap derision when the cop doesn’t shoot a guy who wants to be shot?

 

[Andylusion]

We all know the stories of cops who are involved in questionable shootings, or outright bad shootings. We all know that cops tell us that they can’t hesitate, and we can’t understand what they are going through. Yet, what happens when a cop doesn’t shoot someone?

What Happened When A White Cop Decided Not to Shoot a Black Man

The cop is fired, and labeled a coward. Officer Mader of the Weirton police department got the call nobody should want. There was a problem at an address, the woman called and asked for help, and then hung up. She did not answer on the call back. Mader arrived and found the Ex Boyfriend outside, with his hand behind him. Mader told him to show the hands, common, standard even to now. But the man had a gun, and the Ex Girlfriend told the dispatcher that the man had dropped the magazine, and was going to get the cops to shoot him. Suicide by cop. The dispatcher did not report this, but Mader knew what was going on. He could see it, sense it. He got behind cover, and pulled his own pistol, and realized the man was trying to suicide by cop. He knew it.

Then two more officers showed up, and one of them fired four times, missing the distraught man all four. The fifth shot hit, and killed the man. OK, so far, we have a bad situation, but a justifiable shooting. The man was waving the gun around, and the cops didn’t know that he was trying to suicide by cop. Mader felt it, sensed it, and just knew it in his bones.

So what happened? Was the guy who took the shot fired? Nope. Without even talking to Mader, the Captain, and the Chief of Police made the decision to fire Mader for NOT shooting a distraught man who was intending to suicide by cop. Mader was labeled a coward, his reputation destroyed, by people who never even interviewed him. Not once talking to him to get his side. Why?

We keep hearing about the vast majority of cops who are good. Who are doing a tough job the best way they can. Yet in this case, while I can’t fault the second and third officer arriving as they did, and going with what they saw, I can question the decision to fire the first officer on the scene, the one who should have been in control, but wasn’t because the other officers had more time. The Rookie knew it was a suicide by cop, but did not want to oblige the man.

The Chief admitted he had never investigated an officer involved shooting. He had no idea what he was doing, and no idea what the officers were taught to do at the academy concerning de-escalation of the situation. So why was Mader fired? In an effort to head off the lawsuit. The inevitable lawsuit since the officers did not have all the information the Dispatcher had gotten, about the intentions of the man. That which Mader realized when he was talking to the guy.

With that information, a man could have gotten the help he needed. Without it, the police were unarmed as far as understanding the situation. The police could have helped a man, saved a life, and saved themselves a lot of trouble. Instead, they went after the one who didn’t want to shoot, because he wanted to honestly help. The good cop was sacrificed, thrown away to protect the others. One comment from his training officer is interesting. Mader understood to always have the back of a fellow cop. Cops first, all of us a distant second. A very distant second.

So where are all those good cops, the ones who would insure that truth, and doing the right thing matters? Apparently there weren’t any in charge of the department.

Are you sure that is the reason? I think the reason real reason he was fired is because a intentionally armed and deadly man, could have killed someone while this officer did nothing.

I gotta tell you, if I was in that situation and my life was possibly in danger, and this guy refused to fire based on a hunch.... I would not want this guy working with me anymore.

It's the same reason that boot camp is designed to be stressful and hard. They want the people who are going to crack, to do so at boot camp, instead of in a war zone, because if they crack in the war zone, then everyone around him dies.

You can't have your police backup, when faced with a clearly dangerous situation, just decide "Hey I think his gun is unloaded and he's trying to suicide by cop!". NO. You are going to end up shot, because sparky refused to cover you based on a hunch? No.

Well if you had read the article, you would know that this particular officer, before joining the police, had joined the Marines. He did Boot Camp, and a tour in Afghanistan. I’m pretty sure if he was going to freeze up, he would have done so long before he hung a badge on his chest.

Explain this to me if you can. Why is it that the hunch of the cop is not only acceptable, but must be taken as Gospel without question when pulling over a car, the cop felt something was suspicious, the baddie might have a gun, or in a thousand other incidents, but not when it comes to holding fire. Can you explain that to me? Why is it we are supposed to cheer when a cop shoots an unarmed guy who MIGHT be armed, but we are supposed to heap derision when the cop doesn’t shoot a guy who wants to be shot?

That doesn't seem nearly that difficult to figure out. You really can't contemplate this on your own?

If a police officer pulls a car over on a hunch, and turns out to be wrong.... the car drives off, the officer drives off, and life goes on.

If a police officer refuses to fire at a man wielding a weapon, based on a hunch, and turns out to be wrong.... officers and civilians, both end up killed.

Come on man....you really could not possibly figure that out on your own?

 

[SavannahMann]

We all know the stories of cops who are involved in questionable shootings, or outright bad shootings. We all know that cops tell us that they can’t hesitate, and we can’t understand what they are going through. Yet, what happens when a cop doesn’t shoot someone?

What Happened When A White Cop Decided Not to Shoot a Black Man

The cop is fired, and labeled a coward. Officer Mader of the Weirton police department got the call nobody should want. There was a problem at an address, the woman called and asked for help, and then hung up. She did not answer on the call back. Mader arrived and found the Ex Boyfriend outside, with his hand behind him. Mader told him to show the hands, common, standard even to now. But the man had a gun, and the Ex Girlfriend told the dispatcher that the man had dropped the magazine, and was going to get the cops to shoot him. Suicide by cop. The dispatcher did not report this, but Mader knew what was going on. He could see it, sense it. He got behind cover, and pulled his own pistol, and realized the man was trying to suicide by cop. He knew it.

Then two more officers showed up, and one of them fired four times, missing the distraught man all four. The fifth shot hit, and killed the man. OK, so far, we have a bad situation, but a justifiable shooting. The man was waving the gun around, and the cops didn’t know that he was trying to suicide by cop. Mader felt it, sensed it, and just knew it in his bones.

So what happened? Was the guy who took the shot fired? Nope. Without even talking to Mader, the Captain, and the Chief of Police made the decision to fire Mader for NOT shooting a distraught man who was intending to suicide by cop. Mader was labeled a coward, his reputation destroyed, by people who never even interviewed him. Not once talking to him to get his side. Why?

We keep hearing about the vast majority of cops who are good. Who are doing a tough job the best way they can. Yet in this case, while I can’t fault the second and third officer arriving as they did, and going with what they saw, I can question the decision to fire the first officer on the scene, the one who should have been in control, but wasn’t because the other officers had more time. The Rookie knew it was a suicide by cop, but did not want to oblige the man.

The Chief admitted he had never investigated an officer involved shooting. He had no idea what he was doing, and no idea what the officers were taught to do at the academy concerning de-escalation of the situation. So why was Mader fired? In an effort to head off the lawsuit. The inevitable lawsuit since the officers did not have all the information the Dispatcher had gotten, about the intentions of the man. That which Mader realized when he was talking to the guy.

With that information, a man could have gotten the help he needed. Without it, the police were unarmed as far as understanding the situation. The police could have helped a man, saved a life, and saved themselves a lot of trouble. Instead, they went after the one who didn’t want to shoot, because he wanted to honestly help. The good cop was sacrificed, thrown away to protect the others. One comment from his training officer is interesting. Mader understood to always have the back of a fellow cop. Cops first, all of us a distant second. A very distant second.

So where are all those good cops, the ones who would insure that truth, and doing the right thing matters? Apparently there weren’t any in charge of the department.

Are you sure that is the reason? I think the reason real reason he was fired is because a intentionally armed and deadly man, could have killed someone while this officer did nothing.

I gotta tell you, if I was in that situation and my life was possibly in danger, and this guy refused to fire based on a hunch.... I would not want this guy working with me anymore.

It's the same reason that boot camp is designed to be stressful and hard. They want the people who are going to crack, to do so at boot camp, instead of in a war zone, because if they crack in the war zone, then everyone around him dies.

You can't have your police backup, when faced with a clearly dangerous situation, just decide "Hey I think his gun is unloaded and he's trying to suicide by cop!". NO. You are going to end up shot, because sparky refused to cover you based on a hunch? No.

Well if you had read the article, you would know that this particular officer, before joining the police, had joined the Marines. He did Boot Camp, and a tour in Afghanistan. I’m pretty sure if he was going to freeze up, he would have done so long before he hung a badge on his chest.

Explain this to me if you can. Why is it that the hunch of the cop is not only acceptable, but must be taken as Gospel without question when pulling over a car, the cop felt something was suspicious, the baddie might have a gun, or in a thousand other incidents, but not when it comes to holding fire. Can you explain that to me? Why is it we are supposed to cheer when a cop shoots an unarmed guy who MIGHT be armed, but we are supposed to heap derision when the cop doesn’t shoot a guy who wants to be shot?

That doesn't seem nearly that difficult to figure out. You really can't contemplate this on your own?

If a police officer pulls a car over on a hunch, and turns out to be wrong.... the car drives off, the officer drives off, and life goes on.

If a police officer refuses to fire at a man wielding a weapon, based on a hunch, and turns out to be wrong.... officers and civilians, both end up killed.

Come on man....you really could not possibly figure that out on your own?

And the converse is true as well. If the cop feels the baddie is a threat, and kills him, then that individual doesn’t go home. Taking a life is not something you do because the possible alternatives are bad. In this situation, the first cop did exactly the right thing. He got to cover, a place where bullets if fired, would not strike him. That gave him time, time to take whatever action he believed was appropriate. Time to talk, and he was talking to the suspect. There was no rush, no need to fire now or lose the chance. The cops had time, and the one who fired should have gotten a big clue when he fired four rounds, and missed and the baddie didn’t move or return fire.

Think about that. What sane individual is going to stand there and let you shoot at him four times, and not run, seek cover of his own, or return fire? What lunatic isn’t going to seek cover, and return fire? But no, the idiot who did shoot took the time after all of this to line up his next shot for the head. Nothing was going on in his mind except shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, and shoot some more.

Mader took the time to assess the situation, and make a judgement call. It turns out his call was right. No one needed to die that night, and again, this isn’t a situation where the baddie was firing at the cops, or whatever. He was literally just standing there while four rounds flew past him hitting everything but him. If there was a danger of a citizen, or another cop being hit, it was from the idiot cop who was firing like mad and missing the suspect.

Shoot when you must, kill when you must, but take the time you are given to make the right choices, because time is one thing that is precious beyond measure. Take the extra half second and figure out what is going on. But our shooter never questioned it, even when the suspect didn’t react to the first four misses. If I fired at you four times, I bet you would not be standing there waiting for me to shoot again. You would do something in response wouldn’t you?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

We all know the stories of cops who are involved in questionable shootings, or outright bad shootings. We all know that cops tell us that they can’t hesitate, and we can’t understand what they are going through. Yet, what happens when a cop doesn’t shoot someone?

What Happened When A White Cop Decided Not to Shoot a Black Man

The cop is fired, and labeled a coward. Officer Mader of the Weirton police department got the call nobody should want. There was a problem at an address, the woman called and asked for help, and then hung up. She did not answer on the call back. Mader arrived and found the Ex Boyfriend outside, with his hand behind him. Mader told him to show the hands, common, standard even to now. But the man had a gun, and the Ex Girlfriend told the dispatcher that the man had dropped the magazine, and was going to get the cops to shoot him. Suicide by cop. The dispatcher did not report this, but Mader knew what was going on. He could see it, sense it. He got behind cover, and pulled his own pistol, and realized the man was trying to suicide by cop. He knew it.

Then two more officers showed up, and one of them fired four times, missing the distraught man all four. The fifth shot hit, and killed the man. OK, so far, we have a bad situation, but a justifiable shooting. The man was waving the gun around, and the cops didn’t know that he was trying to suicide by cop. Mader felt it, sensed it, and just knew it in his bones.

So what happened? Was the guy who took the shot fired? Nope. Without even talking to Mader, the Captain, and the Chief of Police made the decision to fire Mader for NOT shooting a distraught man who was intending to suicide by cop. Mader was labeled a coward, his reputation destroyed, by people who never even interviewed him. Not once talking to him to get his side. Why?

We keep hearing about the vast majority of cops who are good. Who are doing a tough job the best way they can. Yet in this case, while I can’t fault the second and third officer arriving as they did, and going with what they saw, I can question the decision to fire the first officer on the scene, the one who should have been in control, but wasn’t because the other officers had more time. The Rookie knew it was a suicide by cop, but did not want to oblige the man.

The Chief admitted he had never investigated an officer involved shooting. He had no idea what he was doing, and no idea what the officers were taught to do at the academy concerning de-escalation of the situation. So why was Mader fired? In an effort to head off the lawsuit. The inevitable lawsuit since the officers did not have all the information the Dispatcher had gotten, about the intentions of the man. That which Mader realized when he was talking to the guy.

With that information, a man could have gotten the help he needed. Without it, the police were unarmed as far as understanding the situation. The police could have helped a man, saved a life, and saved themselves a lot of trouble. Instead, they went after the one who didn’t want to shoot, because he wanted to honestly help. The good cop was sacrificed, thrown away to protect the others. One comment from his training officer is interesting. Mader understood to always have the back of a fellow cop. Cops first, all of us a distant second. A very distant second.

So where are all those good cops, the ones who would insure that truth, and doing the right thing matters? Apparently there weren’t any in charge of the department.

Are you sure that is the reason? I think the reason real reason he was fired is because a intentionally armed and deadly man, could have killed someone while this officer did nothing.

I gotta tell you, if I was in that situation and my life was possibly in danger, and this guy refused to fire based on a hunch.... I would not want this guy working with me anymore.

It's the same reason that boot camp is designed to be stressful and hard. They want the people who are going to crack, to do so at boot camp, instead of in a war zone, because if they crack in the war zone, then everyone around him dies.

You can't have your police backup, when faced with a clearly dangerous situation, just decide "Hey I think his gun is unloaded and he's trying to suicide by cop!". NO. You are going to end up shot, because sparky refused to cover you based on a hunch? No.

I appears that the old shoot to mass is still the rule, and should be. I could be they might have to start with teaching some type of disable shooting, all tho this seem like a crock.

 

[sparky]

It sounds like Mader kept his head to me .....~S~

 

[Andylusion]

We all know the stories of cops who are involved in questionable shootings, or outright bad shootings. We all know that cops tell us that they can’t hesitate, and we can’t understand what they are going through. Yet, what happens when a cop doesn’t shoot someone?

What Happened When A White Cop Decided Not to Shoot a Black Man

The cop is fired, and labeled a coward. Officer Mader of the Weirton police department got the call nobody should want. There was a problem at an address, the woman called and asked for help, and then hung up. She did not answer on the call back. Mader arrived and found the Ex Boyfriend outside, with his hand behind him. Mader told him to show the hands, common, standard even to now. But the man had a gun, and the Ex Girlfriend told the dispatcher that the man had dropped the magazine, and was going to get the cops to shoot him. Suicide by cop. The dispatcher did not report this, but Mader knew what was going on. He could see it, sense it. He got behind cover, and pulled his own pistol, and realized the man was trying to suicide by cop. He knew it.

Then two more officers showed up, and one of them fired four times, missing the distraught man all four. The fifth shot hit, and killed the man. OK, so far, we have a bad situation, but a justifiable shooting. The man was waving the gun around, and the cops didn’t know that he was trying to suicide by cop. Mader felt it, sensed it, and just knew it in his bones.

So what happened? Was the guy who took the shot fired? Nope. Without even talking to Mader, the Captain, and the Chief of Police made the decision to fire Mader for NOT shooting a distraught man who was intending to suicide by cop. Mader was labeled a coward, his reputation destroyed, by people who never even interviewed him. Not once talking to him to get his side. Why?

We keep hearing about the vast majority of cops who are good. Who are doing a tough job the best way they can. Yet in this case, while I can’t fault the second and third officer arriving as they did, and going with what they saw, I can question the decision to fire the first officer on the scene, the one who should have been in control, but wasn’t because the other officers had more time. The Rookie knew it was a suicide by cop, but did not want to oblige the man.

The Chief admitted he had never investigated an officer involved shooting. He had no idea what he was doing, and no idea what the officers were taught to do at the academy concerning de-escalation of the situation. So why was Mader fired? In an effort to head off the lawsuit. The inevitable lawsuit since the officers did not have all the information the Dispatcher had gotten, about the intentions of the man. That which Mader realized when he was talking to the guy.

With that information, a man could have gotten the help he needed. Without it, the police were unarmed as far as understanding the situation. The police could have helped a man, saved a life, and saved themselves a lot of trouble. Instead, they went after the one who didn’t want to shoot, because he wanted to honestly help. The good cop was sacrificed, thrown away to protect the others. One comment from his training officer is interesting. Mader understood to always have the back of a fellow cop. Cops first, all of us a distant second. A very distant second.

So where are all those good cops, the ones who would insure that truth, and doing the right thing matters? Apparently there weren’t any in charge of the department.

Are you sure that is the reason? I think the reason real reason he was fired is because a intentionally armed and deadly man, could have killed someone while this officer did nothing.

I gotta tell you, if I was in that situation and my life was possibly in danger, and this guy refused to fire based on a hunch.... I would not want this guy working with me anymore.

It's the same reason that boot camp is designed to be stressful and hard. They want the people who are going to crack, to do so at boot camp, instead of in a war zone, because if they crack in the war zone, then everyone around him dies.

You can't have your police backup, when faced with a clearly dangerous situation, just decide "Hey I think his gun is unloaded and he's trying to suicide by cop!". NO. You are going to end up shot, because sparky refused to cover you based on a hunch? No.

I appears that the old shoot to mass is still the rule, and should be. I could be they might have to start with teaching some type of disable shooting, all tho this seem like a crock.

Teaching some type of disable shooting?

I'm not positive, but I think you are advocating trying to teach police officers, to shoot someone in the hand, or shoot the gun out of their hand, or something that you would see in the movies.

The movies are crap. That isn't how life works.

Police officers do not carry rifles, like the military does. Have you ever wondered why the military uses rifles instead of everyone with a pistol? Pistols are lighter, and the soldier could carry more ammo. So why not? Because it is so much harder to hit anything with a pistol, over a rifle.

Hitting a person at 20 yards with a pistol is hard enough.

Now you want to try and shoot the gun out of their hands? Or shoot their legs?

Police officers are trained to aim for a body shot. The reason for this is specifically to kill. The reason for this is because you are less likely to miss, aiming for the body, rather than a head shot, or arm shot.

Why is this important? In a war zone, if you miss a target and hit someone behind the target, they call that collateral damage. If a police officer does that, it's called the termination of a career.

Shooting to disable, is never going to be how the police operate. The weapons they carry are not accurate enough for that, and there is far too much risk of an innocent bystander being hit. That's what a taser is for, but that isn't a viable option when confronted with a lethal weapon.

 

[OnePercenter]

I don't see any statistics to back up your claim

How about the $175K the city paid?

You think that proves something? A woman staring at her phone, walked into a bright orange ladder, and collected $160K. That proves nothing, except our court systems and laws are jacked up. It means we need to change the laws, and stop giving money for stupidity.

Apples and oranges. The city settled for more than twice the typical maximum wrongful termination award.

 

[SavannahMann]

We all know the stories of cops who are involved in questionable shootings, or outright bad shootings. We all know that cops tell us that they can’t hesitate, and we can’t understand what they are going through. Yet, what happens when a cop doesn’t shoot someone?

What Happened When A White Cop Decided Not to Shoot a Black Man

The cop is fired, and labeled a coward. Officer Mader of the Weirton police department got the call nobody should want. There was a problem at an address, the woman called and asked for help, and then hung up. She did not answer on the call back. Mader arrived and found the Ex Boyfriend outside, with his hand behind him. Mader told him to show the hands, common, standard even to now. But the man had a gun, and the Ex Girlfriend told the dispatcher that the man had dropped the magazine, and was going to get the cops to shoot him. Suicide by cop. The dispatcher did not report this, but Mader knew what was going on. He could see it, sense it. He got behind cover, and pulled his own pistol, and realized the man was trying to suicide by cop. He knew it.

Then two more officers showed up, and one of them fired four times, missing the distraught man all four. The fifth shot hit, and killed the man. OK, so far, we have a bad situation, but a justifiable shooting. The man was waving the gun around, and the cops didn’t know that he was trying to suicide by cop. Mader felt it, sensed it, and just knew it in his bones.

So what happened? Was the guy who took the shot fired? Nope. Without even talking to Mader, the Captain, and the Chief of Police made the decision to fire Mader for NOT shooting a distraught man who was intending to suicide by cop. Mader was labeled a coward, his reputation destroyed, by people who never even interviewed him. Not once talking to him to get his side. Why?

We keep hearing about the vast majority of cops who are good. Who are doing a tough job the best way they can. Yet in this case, while I can’t fault the second and third officer arriving as they did, and going with what they saw, I can question the decision to fire the first officer on the scene, the one who should have been in control, but wasn’t because the other officers had more time. The Rookie knew it was a suicide by cop, but did not want to oblige the man.

The Chief admitted he had never investigated an officer involved shooting. He had no idea what he was doing, and no idea what the officers were taught to do at the academy concerning de-escalation of the situation. So why was Mader fired? In an effort to head off the lawsuit. The inevitable lawsuit since the officers did not have all the information the Dispatcher had gotten, about the intentions of the man. That which Mader realized when he was talking to the guy.

With that information, a man could have gotten the help he needed. Without it, the police were unarmed as far as understanding the situation. The police could have helped a man, saved a life, and saved themselves a lot of trouble. Instead, they went after the one who didn’t want to shoot, because he wanted to honestly help. The good cop was sacrificed, thrown away to protect the others. One comment from his training officer is interesting. Mader understood to always have the back of a fellow cop. Cops first, all of us a distant second. A very distant second.

So where are all those good cops, the ones who would insure that truth, and doing the right thing matters? Apparently there weren’t any in charge of the department.

Are you sure that is the reason? I think the reason real reason he was fired is because a intentionally armed and deadly man, could have killed someone while this officer did nothing.

I gotta tell you, if I was in that situation and my life was possibly in danger, and this guy refused to fire based on a hunch.... I would not want this guy working with me anymore.

It's the same reason that boot camp is designed to be stressful and hard. They want the people who are going to crack, to do so at boot camp, instead of in a war zone, because if they crack in the war zone, then everyone around him dies.

You can't have your police backup, when faced with a clearly dangerous situation, just decide "Hey I think his gun is unloaded and he's trying to suicide by cop!". NO. You are going to end up shot, because sparky refused to cover you based on a hunch? No.

I appears that the old shoot to mass is still the rule, and should be. I could be they might have to start with teaching some type of disable shooting, all tho this seem like a crock.

Teaching some type of disable shooting?

I'm not positive, but I think you are advocating trying to teach police officers, to shoot someone in the hand, or shoot the gun out of their hand, or something that you would see in the movies.

The movies are crap. That isn't how life works.

Police officers do not carry rifles, like the military does. Have you ever wondered why the military uses rifles instead of everyone with a pistol? Pistols are lighter, and the soldier could carry more ammo. So why not? Because it is so much harder to hit anything with a pistol, over a rifle.

Hitting a person at 20 yards with a pistol is hard enough.

Now you want to try and shoot the gun out of their hands? Or shoot their legs?

Police officers are trained to aim for a body shot. The reason for this is specifically to kill. The reason for this is because you are less likely to miss, aiming for the body, rather than a head shot, or arm shot.

Why is this important? In a war zone, if you miss a target and hit someone behind the target, they call that collateral damage. If a police officer does that, it's called the termination of a career.

Shooting to disable, is never going to be how the police operate. The weapons they carry are not accurate enough for that, and there is far too much risk of an innocent bystander being hit. That's what a taser is for, but that isn't a viable option when confronted with a lethal weapon.

How you shoot is often as important as where you shoot. During the 1970’s the technique taught was Shoot, Shoot, Assess. That meant you fired two rounds, and waited a moment to asses if the baddie was still a threat. If he was falling down, you held fire to see what was going to happen.

Imagine if that had been used in this situation. The cop fired two rounds, which missed. He takes a moment to assess, and suddenly it clicks in his brain that the Suspect is not firing back, not even trying to, and isn’t seeking cover. Even if the cop pulling the trigger is especially dense, he probably would have figured it out after the second shoot, shoot, assess event, when the other two rounds sailed past the suspect. But that wasn’t what he was taught.

He was taught shoot to stop. Or he should have been shoot to stop. Shoot to stop means you keep pulling the trigger until the baddie is stopped. It doesn’t sound like much of a difference, but the shoot to stop technique is often used to empty the magazine. Whereas the shoot shoot assess technique leaves you with three cycles even if you are using a revolver, leaving additional ammunition for additional bad guys.

Most of these idiotic “I was afeared for my life” shootings finds the cop with an empty pistol and one baddie on the ground with a lot of holes in him. If there was a second baddie, he would have killed all the cops who were busy trying to reload while standing in the middle of the road instead of seeking cover, which was also taught during Shoot, Shoot, Assess.

How you shoot, is often more important than where you shoot. In this case, the cop was either a)Trying to kill the baddie by shooting at the head with all five shots instead of center mass as you indicated was proper training. Or B) A catastrophically bad shot by missing center mass with all five rounds fired.

So which was it? All we know for sure is the first cop had assessed the situation, and the later arriving cops, with less information, and less first hand experience with the situation, opened fire and killed the man.

 

[SavannahMann]

We all know the stories of cops who are involved in questionable shootings, or outright bad shootings. We all know that cops tell us that they can’t hesitate, and we can’t understand what they are going through. Yet, what happens when a cop doesn’t shoot someone?

What Happened When A White Cop Decided Not to Shoot a Black Man

The cop is fired, and labeled a coward. Officer Mader of the Weirton police department got the call nobody should want. There was a problem at an address, the woman called and asked for help, and then hung up. She did not answer on the call back. Mader arrived and found the Ex Boyfriend outside, with his hand behind him. Mader told him to show the hands, common, standard even to now. But the man had a gun, and the Ex Girlfriend told the dispatcher that the man had dropped the magazine, and was going to get the cops to shoot him. Suicide by cop. The dispatcher did not report this, but Mader knew what was going on. He could see it, sense it. He got behind cover, and pulled his own pistol, and realized the man was trying to suicide by cop. He knew it.

Then two more officers showed up, and one of them fired four times, missing the distraught man all four. The fifth shot hit, and killed the man. OK, so far, we have a bad situation, but a justifiable shooting. The man was waving the gun around, and the cops didn’t know that he was trying to suicide by cop. Mader felt it, sensed it, and just knew it in his bones.

So what happened? Was the guy who took the shot fired? Nope. Without even talking to Mader, the Captain, and the Chief of Police made the decision to fire Mader for NOT shooting a distraught man who was intending to suicide by cop. Mader was labeled a coward, his reputation destroyed, by people who never even interviewed him. Not once talking to him to get his side. Why?

We keep hearing about the vast majority of cops who are good. Who are doing a tough job the best way they can. Yet in this case, while I can’t fault the second and third officer arriving as they did, and going with what they saw, I can question the decision to fire the first officer on the scene, the one who should have been in control, but wasn’t because the other officers had more time. The Rookie knew it was a suicide by cop, but did not want to oblige the man.

The Chief admitted he had never investigated an officer involved shooting. He had no idea what he was doing, and no idea what the officers were taught to do at the academy concerning de-escalation of the situation. So why was Mader fired? In an effort to head off the lawsuit. The inevitable lawsuit since the officers did not have all the information the Dispatcher had gotten, about the intentions of the man. That which Mader realized when he was talking to the guy.

With that information, a man could have gotten the help he needed. Without it, the police were unarmed as far as understanding the situation. The police could have helped a man, saved a life, and saved themselves a lot of trouble. Instead, they went after the one who didn’t want to shoot, because he wanted to honestly help. The good cop was sacrificed, thrown away to protect the others. One comment from his training officer is interesting. Mader understood to always have the back of a fellow cop. Cops first, all of us a distant second. A very distant second.

So where are all those good cops, the ones who would insure that truth, and doing the right thing matters? Apparently there weren’t any in charge of the department.

Are you sure that is the reason? I think the reason real reason he was fired is because a intentionally armed and deadly man, could have killed someone while this officer did nothing.

I gotta tell you, if I was in that situation and my life was possibly in danger, and this guy refused to fire based on a hunch.... I would not want this guy working with me anymore.

It's the same reason that boot camp is designed to be stressful and hard. They want the people who are going to crack, to do so at boot camp, instead of in a war zone, because if they crack in the war zone, then everyone around him dies.

You can't have your police backup, when faced with a clearly dangerous situation, just decide "Hey I think his gun is unloaded and he's trying to suicide by cop!". NO. You are going to end up shot, because sparky refused to cover you based on a hunch? No.

Well if you had read the article, you would know that this particular officer, before joining the police, had joined the Marines. He did Boot Camp, and a tour in Afghanistan. I’m pretty sure if he was going to freeze up, he would have done so long before he hung a badge on his chest.

Explain this to me if you can. Why is it that the hunch of the cop is not only acceptable, but must be taken as Gospel without question when pulling over a car, the cop felt something was suspicious, the baddie might have a gun, or in a thousand other incidents, but not when it comes to holding fire. Can you explain that to me? Why is it we are supposed to cheer when a cop shoots an unarmed guy who MIGHT be armed, but we are supposed to heap derision when the cop doesn’t shoot a guy who wants to be shot?

That doesn't seem nearly that difficult to figure out. You really can't contemplate this on your own?

If a police officer pulls a car over on a hunch, and turns out to be wrong.... the car drives off, the officer drives off, and life goes on.

If a police officer refuses to fire at a man wielding a weapon, based on a hunch, and turns out to be wrong.... officers and civilians, both end up killed.

Come on man....you really could not possibly figure that out on your own?

You haven’t explained it yet. In this situation, the baddie wasn’t running, or shooting. The first cop had sought cover, which means he was out of the line of bullets, there was something between him and the aforementioned bullets. Now, he has time.

I said it before. Time is precious. With it you can do a lot of things, without it, you have a very short list of possible options concerning action. But he had time. If the second and third cop responding had followed his lead, a man would be alive. Instead, they trumped his move, and screwed up royally.

One of the premises behind Sun Tzu’s Art of War is not to do what your enemy wants you to. If your enemy wants you to die, don’t die. If your enemy wants your to kill him, don’t. If your enemy wants you to attack down the road to the town, don’t for the love of all that is Holy, attack down that damned road.

Don’t play the game by his rules. Play it by your rules, and you will be victorious. It is called inflicting your will upon the enemy. In this case, the cop had the suspect’s will inflicted upon him, and they fired the smartest of the three, to make sure that nobody questioned it.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't see any statistics to back up your claim

How about the $175K the city paid?

You think that proves something? A woman staring at her phone, walked into a bright orange ladder, and collected $160K. That proves nothing, except our court systems and laws are jacked up. It means we need to change the laws, and stop giving money for stupidity.

Apples and oranges. The city settled for more than twice the typical maximum wrongful termination award.

Cities usually do. That's not a shocking statement. It still proves nothing to me. If that is all that is required for your opinion, that just means your opinion isn't worth much.

You want to convince me, great. Go for it. But this isn't evidence of much in my book. You need better evidence than this.

 

[Jarlaxle]

We all know the stories of cops who are involved in questionable shootings, or outright bad shootings. We all know that cops tell us that they can’t hesitate, and we can’t understand what they are going through. Yet, what happens when a cop doesn’t shoot someone?

What Happened When A White Cop Decided Not to Shoot a Black Man

The cop is fired, and labeled a coward. Officer Mader of the Weirton police department got the call nobody should want. There was a problem at an address, the woman called and asked for help, and then hung up. She did not answer on the call back. Mader arrived and found the Ex Boyfriend outside, with his hand behind him. Mader told him to show the hands, common, standard even to now. But the man had a gun, and the Ex Girlfriend told the dispatcher that the man had dropped the magazine, and was going to get the cops to shoot him. Suicide by cop. The dispatcher did not report this, but Mader knew what was going on. He could see it, sense it. He got behind cover, and pulled his own pistol, and realized the man was trying to suicide by cop. He knew it.

Then two more officers showed up, and one of them fired four times, missing the distraught man all four. The fifth shot hit, and killed the man. OK, so far, we have a bad situation, but a justifiable shooting. The man was waving the gun around, and the cops didn’t know that he was trying to suicide by cop. Mader felt it, sensed it, and just knew it in his bones.

So what happened? Was the guy who took the shot fired? Nope. Without even talking to Mader, the Captain, and the Chief of Police made the decision to fire Mader for NOT shooting a distraught man who was intending to suicide by cop. Mader was labeled a coward, his reputation destroyed, by people who never even interviewed him. Not once talking to him to get his side. Why?

We keep hearing about the vast majority of cops who are good. Who are doing a tough job the best way they can. Yet in this case, while I can’t fault the second and third officer arriving as they did, and going with what they saw, I can question the decision to fire the first officer on the scene, the one who should have been in control, but wasn’t because the other officers had more time. The Rookie knew it was a suicide by cop, but did not want to oblige the man.

The Chief admitted he had never investigated an officer involved shooting. He had no idea what he was doing, and no idea what the officers were taught to do at the academy concerning de-escalation of the situation. So why was Mader fired? In an effort to head off the lawsuit. The inevitable lawsuit since the officers did not have all the information the Dispatcher had gotten, about the intentions of the man. That which Mader realized when he was talking to the guy.

With that information, a man could have gotten the help he needed. Without it, the police were unarmed as far as understanding the situation. The police could have helped a man, saved a life, and saved themselves a lot of trouble. Instead, they went after the one who didn’t want to shoot, because he wanted to honestly help. The good cop was sacrificed, thrown away to protect the others. One comment from his training officer is interesting. Mader understood to always have the back of a fellow cop. Cops first, all of us a distant second. A very distant second.

So where are all those good cops, the ones who would insure that truth, and doing the right thing matters? Apparently there weren’t any in charge of the department.

Are you sure that is the reason? I think the reason real reason he was fired is because a intentionally armed and deadly man, could have killed someone while this officer did nothing.

I gotta tell you, if I was in that situation and my life was possibly in danger, and this guy refused to fire based on a hunch.... I would not want this guy working with me anymore.

It's the same reason that boot camp is designed to be stressful and hard. They want the people who are going to crack, to do so at boot camp, instead of in a war zone, because if they crack in the war zone, then everyone around him dies.

You can't have your police backup, when faced with a clearly dangerous situation, just decide "Hey I think his gun is unloaded and he's trying to suicide by cop!". NO. You are going to end up shot, because sparky refused to cover you based on a hunch? No.

I appears that the old shoot to mass is still the rule, and should be. I could be they might have to start with teaching some type of disable shooting, all tho this seem like a crock.

Teaching some type of disable shooting?

I'm not positive, but I think you are advocating trying to teach police officers, to shoot someone in the hand, or shoot the gun out of their hand, or something that you would see in the movies.

The movies are crap. That isn't how life works.

Police officers do not carry rifles, like the military does. Have you ever wondered why the military uses rifles instead of everyone with a pistol? Pistols are lighter, and the soldier could carry more ammo. So why not? Because it is so much harder to hit anything with a pistol, over a rifle.

Hitting a person at 20 yards with a pistol is hard enough.

Now you want to try and shoot the gun out of their hands? Or shoot their legs?

Police officers are trained to aim for a body shot. The reason for this is specifically to kill. The reason for this is because you are less likely to miss, aiming for the body, rather than a head shot, or arm shot.

Why is this important? In a war zone, if you miss a target and hit someone behind the target, they call that collateral damage. If a police officer does that, it's called the termination of a career.

Shooting to disable, is never going to be how the police operate. The weapons they carry are not accurate enough for that, and there is far too much risk of an innocent bystander being hit. That's what a taser is for, but that isn't a viable option when confronted with a lethal weapon.

How you shoot is often as important as where you shoot. During the 1970’s the technique taught was Shoot, Shoot, Assess. That meant you fired two rounds, and waited a moment to asses if the baddie was still a threat. If he was falling down, you held fire to see what was going to happen.

Imagine if that had been used in this situation. The cop fired two rounds, which missed. He takes a moment to assess, and suddenly it clicks in his brain that the Suspect is not firing back, not even trying to, and isn’t seeking cover. Even if the cop pulling the trigger is especially dense, he probably would have figured it out after the second shoot, shoot, assess event, when the other two rounds sailed past the suspect. But that wasn’t what he was taught.

He was taught shoot to stop. Or he should have been shoot to stop. Shoot to stop means you keep pulling the trigger until the baddie is stopped. It doesn’t sound like much of a difference, but the shoot to stop technique is often used to empty the magazine. Whereas the shoot shoot assess technique leaves you with three cycles even if you are using a revolver, leaving additional ammunition for additional bad guys.

Most of these idiotic “I was afeared for my life” shootings finds the cop with an empty pistol and one baddie on the ground with a lot of holes in him. If there was a second baddie, he would have killed all the cops who were busy trying to reload while standing in the middle of the road instead of seeking cover, which was also taught during Shoot, Shoot, Assess.

How you shoot, is often more important than where you shoot. In this case, the cop was either a)Trying to kill the baddie by shooting at the head with all five shots instead of center mass as you indicated was proper training. Or B) A catastrophically bad shot by missing center mass with all five rounds fired.

So which was it? All we know for sure is the first cop had assessed the situation, and the later arriving cops, with less information, and less first hand experience with the situation, opened fire and killed the man.

The new mantra is "spray and pray". Maybe it's time to require cops to carry single-action revolvers.