Was the Columbus, OH., police officer justified shooting the knife wielding girl? (poll)

[Soupnazi630]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

Bullshit!

I tried to find evidence that they do that, nope zero. Meanwhile I find this showing that a lot of police DO NOT do it anyway for safety of people in the area.

Should cops be able to fire warning shots in tense situations? Even police sharply disagree

Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY

October 25, 2017

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON— A new policy endorsing the use of warning shots by police to de-escalate potentially deadly confrontations is driving a rift among some law enforcement leaders who believe the practice only heightens risk and should be abandoned.

The controversial issue broke into the open during a weekend gathering of the nation’s police chiefs in Philadelphia where some officials called for removing the provision allowing for warning shots contained in the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force.

The policy paper was approved earlier this month by a coalition of police groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest society of top law enforcement officials in the country.

"I'll be real candid, I think it's a stupid idea," said James Varrone, assistant police chief in Wilmington, N.C., who first raised the matter Sunday at a law enforcement town hall event staged to coincide with the IACP conference. "I thought the idea of warning shots and the dangers posed by such a policy went away decades ago or longer than I have been in law enforcement – and that's been 31 years.''

LINK

======

You are wrong so many times, you need to stop the made up B.S.

Warning shots went out after the 1970’s in pretty much all departments. By the 1980’s they were essentially banned.



Comeback means they were used.

My comment was intended this way. Give the police the best training and the most tools possible. The more options available, the more likely the cop can manage the situation without killing someone.

Options. Not requirements.

It was never used and never will be.

You must be a young person. The problem with young people is they act as though everything started in the day they were born. History is boring. And they detest hearing all those dates and people who are already dead.

Warning shots were policy decades ago. The link I posted included a quote from a respected firearms trainer and former cop who confirmed they were used decades ago.

I have mentioned this before. Radicals misuse many words. Anything they do not like is a lie. The problem is that things that actually happened are not lies. To a radical no matter what extreme political philosophy they advocate, any information that does not meet the political standard is a lie.

This is why totalitarians always rewrite history books. To exclude the information that does not agree with their political philosophy.

Your own actions have exposed yourself as a radical. An extremist. And if you were in power you would first kill all the academics and anyone old enough to know the truth. It is why the majority reject radicals no matter the political stripes they wear.

Im probably older than you and they were never policy.

You are not old enough or smart enough to know the truth.

The facts about firearms have been true for centuries and warning shots are not used and never were. They are unpredictable dangerous and only serve to escalate situations and create more legal problems.

You are simply wrong and projecting it is YOU spinning and attempting to write revisionist fiction as history
Grow up BOY

From the article.

Ayoob says fear of mishaps drove warning shots out of policing by the time he started as a cop in the 1970s. But now it may be making a comeback.

"There was a lot of discussion," says the IACP's Terry Cunningham, describing the process that led the 11 law enforcement organizations to include warning shots in the new consensus use of force policy. Cunningham was struck by the anecdotes of situations in which warning shots saved a life — or might have, had they been allowed.

He knows they were permitted and even policy. But hey. What does a cop know about what the police used to do?

They were never policy he is expressing opinion only

Cops have always been taught not to do that and that is fact.

It is foolish and never done nor should it be

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

Okay. None of this is true. It 8s totally illegal to fire guns in the air in Los Angeles because too many people have been killed by descending bullets.

The Science Of Why Firing Your Gun Up Into The Air Can Be Lethal

July 4th and New Years Eve are the most dangerous times for a hail of falling bullets from 'celebratory gunfire.'

www.forbes.com

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

Okay. None of this is true. It 8s totally illegal to fire guns in the air in Los Angeles because too many people have been killed by descending bullets.

The Science Of Why Firing Your Gun Up Into The Air Can Be Lethal

July 4th and New Years Eve are the most dangerous times for a hail of falling bullets from 'celebratory gunfire.'

www.forbes.com

Dont confiuse this clown with logic and facts he gets his information from very old tv shows

 

[Rigby5]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

Bullshit!

I tried to find evidence that they do that, nope zero. Meanwhile I find this showing that a lot of police DO NOT do it anyway for safety of people in the area.

Should cops be able to fire warning shots in tense situations? Even police sharply disagree

Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY

October 25, 2017

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON— A new policy endorsing the use of warning shots by police to de-escalate potentially deadly confrontations is driving a rift among some law enforcement leaders who believe the practice only heightens risk and should be abandoned.

The controversial issue broke into the open during a weekend gathering of the nation’s police chiefs in Philadelphia where some officials called for removing the provision allowing for warning shots contained in the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force.

The policy paper was approved earlier this month by a coalition of police groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest society of top law enforcement officials in the country.

"I'll be real candid, I think it's a stupid idea," said James Varrone, assistant police chief in Wilmington, N.C., who first raised the matter Sunday at a law enforcement town hall event staged to coincide with the IACP conference. "I thought the idea of warning shots and the dangers posed by such a policy went away decades ago or longer than I have been in law enforcement – and that's been 31 years.''

LINK

======

You are wrong so many times, you need to stop the made up B.S.

Warning shots went out after the 1970’s in pretty much all departments. By the 1980’s they were essentially banned.



Comeback means they were used.

My comment was intended this way. Give the police the best training and the most tools possible. The more options available, the more likely the cop can manage the situation without killing someone.

Options. Not requirements.

It was never used and never will be.

You must be a young person. The problem with young people is they act as though everything started in the day they were born. History is boring. And they detest hearing all those dates and people who are already dead.

Warning shots were policy decades ago. The link I posted included a quote from a respected firearms trainer and former cop who confirmed they were used decades ago.

I have mentioned this before. Radicals misuse many words. Anything they do not like is a lie. The problem is that things that actually happened are not lies. To a radical no matter what extreme political philosophy they advocate, any information that does not meet the political standard is a lie.

This is why totalitarians always rewrite history books. To exclude the information that does not agree with their political philosophy.

Your own actions have exposed yourself as a radical. An extremist. And if you were in power you would first kill all the academics and anyone old enough to know the truth. It is why the majority reject radicals no matter the political stripes they wear.

Im probably older than you and they were never policy.

You are not old enough or smart enough to know the truth.

The facts about firearms have been true for centuries and warning shots are not used and never were. They are unpredictable dangerous and only serve to escalate situations and create more legal problems.

You are simply wrong and projecting it is YOU spinning and attempting to write revisionist fiction as history
Grow up BOY

From the article.

Ayoob says fear of mishaps drove warning shots out of policing by the time he started as a cop in the 1970s. But now it may be making a comeback.

"There was a lot of discussion," says the IACP's Terry Cunningham, describing the process that led the 11 law enforcement organizations to include warning shots in the new consensus use of force policy. Cunningham was struck by the anecdotes of situations in which warning shots saved a life — or might have, had they been allowed.

He knows they were permitted and even policy. But hey. What does a cop know about what the police used to do?

They were never policy he is expressing opinion only

Cops have always been taught not to do that and that is fact.

It is foolish and never done nor should it be

Wrong.
Warning shots were always historically the norm, and only were wrongly stopped in the 1970s for some reason involving litigation.
There was never a good or practical reason for stopping warning shots.
Warning shots were always a good idea when appropriate.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

Okay. None of this is true. It 8s totally illegal to fire guns in the air in Los Angeles because too many people have been killed by descending bullets.

The Science Of Why Firing Your Gun Up Into The Air Can Be Lethal

July 4th and New Years Eve are the most dangerous times for a hail of falling bullets from 'celebratory gunfire.'

www.forbes.com

Dont confiuse this clown with logic and facts he gets his information from very old tv shows

You did not read your own link.

{...
a bullet that falls from high in the air only possesses 1% of the energy of a bullet newly fired from a gun: the equivalent of a brick dropped from a height of just 50 cm (about 20 inches) off the ground.
,,,}

Which means that a bullet shot up into the air really is NOT dangerous.
You would have to get hit in the eye or something very unusual for it to have serious consequences.

But even that is silly since these is almost always plenty of grass to aim at with a warning shot.

I am old enough to remember what it was like BEFORE TV, and warning shots were common.

 

[Rogue AI]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

 

[Donald H]

Permanent ignore.

Probably for the best that you ignore me. Your anger is over the top and you've demonstrated your vile racism with your 'primate' innuendoes.

Yes, all humans are primates but none any more or less than others.

 

[Donald H]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

There's no question that by far most Americans who post on this board are vile racists and extremists.

Is that representative of Americans in general or is this board an extreme anomaly? What do you think rogue? Do you have the support of the majority of Americans on your vile racism and hate toward people of colour?

 

[Rigby5]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

Why even use the word "stab"?
That wind up to the right shows it was going to be a slash if anything at all.
Odds are it was only theatrics, since no blood had been spilled in the 15 minutes of knife wielding before the cops arrived.

 

[Rogue AI]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

There's no question that by far most Americans who post on this board are vile racists and extremists.

Is that representative of Americans in general or is this board an extreme anomaly? What do you think rogue? Do you have the support of the majority of Americans on your vile racism and hate toward people of colour?

What are you talking about? Can you point out when BLM and their insurrectionist friends ever rioted for an innocent person and not a thug? Go on, I'll wait.

The only racism I see is if from the left. Can't even say 'it's ok to be white', but black lives matter. How is that not racist? Oh right, it is, that's the liberal way.

 

[Rigby5]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

There's no question that by far most Americans who post on this board are vile racists and extremists.

Is that representative of Americans in general or is this board an extreme anomaly? What do you think rogue? Do you have the support of the majority of Americans on your vile racism and hate toward people of colour?

We disagree about gun control, but agree with you on this one.
Any time an outcome is a death, that is not success.
I think lots of things could be improved, like a warning shot, not firing a bust of 4 shots so quickly, less lethal FMJ instead of hollow points, lower power calibers, etc.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

That pathetic girl in pink who now understands that black people, her people, would rather she were killed. That's quite a burden for a young teen. These are contests for survival of the fittest. This is almost exactly like the fights common in chimpanzee tribes.

 

[Rigby5]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

There's no question that by far most Americans who post on this board are vile racists and extremists.

Is that representative of Americans in general or is this board an extreme anomaly? What do you think rogue? Do you have the support of the majority of Americans on your vile racism and hate toward people of colour?

What are you talking about? Can you point out when BLM and their insurrectionist friends ever rioted for an innocent person and not a thug? Go on, I'll wait.

The only racism I see is if from the left. Can't even say 'it's ok to be white', but black lives matter. How is that not racist? Oh right, it is, that's the liberal way.

Lots of unarmed kids who committed no crime have been killed, like Tamir Rice, and unarmed women who committed no crime like Breonna Taylor.

 

[Dragonlady]

Amost certainly NO.

A more proficient police officer would have been able to remedy the situation so that it didn't result in death.

Death was the outcome and that can never be seen as a successful handling of the situation.

Once again is simply boils downt bab policing that's due to a lack of police concern for black lives.

It would be a near certainty that had the knife wielder been a white child and the intended victim a black child, the outcome would have been different and more desirable.

Americans can't understand this and so the fight to reform their police will be long, which will most likely result in police pushing the envelope on their right to kill to even greater heights.

1. There was no other option than to shoot the murdering perp, white or black to protect the unarmed girl.
Your answer is to let the murder happen??????? Unacceptable.

2. In 2022 and 2024 the voters will decide what type of police forces they want.

1. How do you know there was no other option? The police didn't even tell her to drop the knife. They just rolled up and opened fire without even trying other options. This is exactly the time to use the taser.

2. The girl dropped the knife when the first shot hit her. Why was it necessary to shoot her 3 more times in the chest? She might have survived one bullet.

3. What if the girl who was shot was the one being attacked and she was defending herself? That's what the bystanders said was happening. The 15 year old girl was being attacked by two adults, and she was defending herself with a KITCHEN knife. Her attackers were in no danger of being killed by that knife.

4. The voters have already decided and it's not a police force that shoots first and asks questions later.

American police shoot and kill more than 1000 people per year. They are more likely to shoot black people without trying to resolve the situation, than white people. A lot more likely. Furthermore, when police shoot white people, they are more likely to survive the shooting than black people. One shot will general stop them. Emptying clips into people generally kills them.

 

[Dragonlady]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

That pathetic girl in pink who now understands that black people, her people, would rather she were killed. That's quite a burden for a young teen. These are contests for survival of the fittest. This is almost exactly like the fights common in chimpanzee tribes.

Ah yes, it's the drunken racist again. You are truly a disgusting piece of filth. You are the chimpanzee here, flinging your shit at the humans passing by.

 

[Rigby5]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

That pathetic girl in pink who now understands that black people, her people, would rather she were killed. That's quite a burden for a young teen. These are contests for survival of the fittest. This is almost exactly like the fights common in chimpanzee tribes.

You seem to forget that there are not really any genetic differences between races.
The "Eve out of Africa" research proves whites are just a type of Black with excessive in breeding.
Whites not only also are chimpanzee tribes, but were living in mud huts in squalor only about 2000 years ago, while the rest of the Mediterranean (olive or darker) was much more advanced.

 

[Rogue AI]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

There's no question that by far most Americans who post on this board are vile racists and extremists.

Is that representative of Americans in general or is this board an extreme anomaly? What do you think rogue? Do you have the support of the majority of Americans on your vile racism and hate toward people of colour?

What are you talking about? Can you point out when BLM and their insurrectionist friends ever rioted for an innocent person and not a thug? Go on, I'll wait.

The only racism I see is if from the left. Can't even say 'it's ok to be white', but black lives matter. How is that not racist? Oh right, it is, that's the liberal way.

Lots of unarmed kids who committed no crime have been killed, like Tamir Rice, and unarmed women who committed no crime like Breonna Taylor.

Give the circumstances, because otherwise you are lying. That drug dealer Taylor's boyfriend fired on cops, her death was not only justified it the boyfriend's fault, not the police. Was the Rice kid resisting or running from the cops? That's what thugs do. Our overcrowded prison system proves you can actually get arrested in this country without dying.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

Bullshit!

I tried to find evidence that they do that, nope zero. Meanwhile I find this showing that a lot of police DO NOT do it anyway for safety of people in the area.

Should cops be able to fire warning shots in tense situations? Even police sharply disagree

Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY

October 25, 2017

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON— A new policy endorsing the use of warning shots by police to de-escalate potentially deadly confrontations is driving a rift among some law enforcement leaders who believe the practice only heightens risk and should be abandoned.

The controversial issue broke into the open during a weekend gathering of the nation’s police chiefs in Philadelphia where some officials called for removing the provision allowing for warning shots contained in the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force.

The policy paper was approved earlier this month by a coalition of police groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest society of top law enforcement officials in the country.

"I'll be real candid, I think it's a stupid idea," said James Varrone, assistant police chief in Wilmington, N.C., who first raised the matter Sunday at a law enforcement town hall event staged to coincide with the IACP conference. "I thought the idea of warning shots and the dangers posed by such a policy went away decades ago or longer than I have been in law enforcement – and that's been 31 years.''

LINK

======

You are wrong so many times, you need to stop the made up B.S.

Warning shots went out after the 1970’s in pretty much all departments. By the 1980’s they were essentially banned.



Comeback means they were used.

My comment was intended this way. Give the police the best training and the most tools possible. The more options available, the more likely the cop can manage the situation without killing someone.

Options. Not requirements.

It was never used and never will be.

You must be a young person. The problem with young people is they act as though everything started in the day they were born. History is boring. And they detest hearing all those dates and people who are already dead.

Warning shots were policy decades ago. The link I posted included a quote from a respected firearms trainer and former cop who confirmed they were used decades ago.

I have mentioned this before. Radicals misuse many words. Anything they do not like is a lie. The problem is that things that actually happened are not lies. To a radical no matter what extreme political philosophy they advocate, any information that does not meet the political standard is a lie.

This is why totalitarians always rewrite history books. To exclude the information that does not agree with their political philosophy.

Your own actions have exposed yourself as a radical. An extremist. And if you were in power you would first kill all the academics and anyone old enough to know the truth. It is why the majority reject radicals no matter the political stripes they wear.

Im probably older than you and they were never policy.

You are not old enough or smart enough to know the truth.

The facts about firearms have been true for centuries and warning shots are not used and never were. They are unpredictable dangerous and only serve to escalate situations and create more legal problems.

You are simply wrong and projecting it is YOU spinning and attempting to write revisionist fiction as history
Grow up BOY

From the article.

Ayoob says fear of mishaps drove warning shots out of policing by the time he started as a cop in the 1970s. But now it may be making a comeback.

"There was a lot of discussion," says the IACP's Terry Cunningham, describing the process that led the 11 law enforcement organizations to include warning shots in the new consensus use of force policy. Cunningham was struck by the anecdotes of situations in which warning shots saved a life — or might have, had they been allowed.

He knows they were permitted and even policy. But hey. What does a cop know about what the police used to do?

They were never policy he is expressing opinion only

Cops have always been taught not to do that and that is fact.

It is foolish and never done nor should it be

Wrong.
Warning shots not only always USED to be police policy, but always make sense, and are less dangerous.
They only stopped teaching warning shots to new police in the 1970s.
A shot aimed at a person is a thousand times more dangerous than a warning shot aimed at the ground, because a miss is always then going to be exactly aimed on a plane of where all the people are.

 

[Donald H]

1. How do you know there was no other option? The police didn't even tell her to drop the knife. They just rolled up and opened fire without even trying other options. This is exactly the time to use the taser.

2. The girl dropped the knife when the first shot hit her. Why was it necessary to shoot her 3 more times in the chest? She might have survived one bullet.

3. What if the girl who was shot was the one being attacked and she was defending herself? That's what the bystanders said was happening. The 15 year old girl was being attacked by two adults, and she was defending herself with a KITCHEN knife. Her attackers were in no danger of being killed by that knife.

4. The voters have already decided and it's not a police force that shoots first and asks questions later.

American police shoot and kill more than 1000 people per year. They are more likely to shoot black people without trying to resolve the situation, than white people. A lot more likely. Furthermore, when police shoot white people, they are more likely to survive the shooting than black people. One shot will general stop them. Emptying clips into people generally kills them.

Very well said but it's not going to be received with any understanding by the people on this forum who are here to voice their extremist hating and racism. Most are making no attempt to hide their ugly dispositions.

You've said basically the same as what I tried to tell them, in just a few words. A police officer who attends a crime scene or potential crime scene that ends in a death or deaths, has failed the requirements of his/her job.

Good police officers would agree with that. I know that no Canadian police force would refuse to accept that as a minimum standard. Can it be impressed on America's police forces to accept it too? It's a very low bar to meet.

 

[Rigby5]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

There's no question that by far most Americans who post on this board are vile racists and extremists.

Is that representative of Americans in general or is this board an extreme anomaly? What do you think rogue? Do you have the support of the majority of Americans on your vile racism and hate toward people of colour?

What are you talking about? Can you point out when BLM and their insurrectionist friends ever rioted for an innocent person and not a thug? Go on, I'll wait.

The only racism I see is if from the left. Can't even say 'it's ok to be white', but black lives matter. How is that not racist? Oh right, it is, that's the liberal way.

Lots of unarmed kids who committed no crime have been killed, like Tamir Rice, and unarmed women who committed no crime like Breonna Taylor.

Give the circumstances, because otherwise you are lying. That drug dealer Taylor's boyfriend fired on cops, her death was not only justified it the boyfriend's fault, not the police. Was the Rice kid resisting or running from the cops? That's what thugs do. Our overcrowded prison system proves you can actually get arrested in this country without dying.

Wrong.
First of all, no one at the Taylor house had dealt any drugs or even violated any law at all.
Second is that the no-knock warrant was illegal since there was no probable cause to even consider a violation of the law was even possible.
Third is that the police entirely caused the situation by smashing down the door in the middle of the night, causing great fear and anxiety.
The boyfriend has the right to shoot all the cops because of his inherent right of defense.
The boyfriend only fired one shot into the ground.
Breonna was not near the boyfriend and was not armed, so there was no justification for even aiming at her, much less shooting.
What you suggest is like the police being called for a bank robbery alarm, and they then be justified in shooting up the innocent customers if they get shot at.
Doesn't work that way.
Breonna Taylor was who the police were supposed to be working for, and it is essentially treason for them to then shoot her for no reason.