On a side note. A buddy of mine had almost this exact same thing happen to him quite a few years ago. A guy got kicked out of a bar at closing time. Guy comes back with a pick axe while female bartender is closing up. He smashes up the bar and chases her around, but she ends up escaping. That’s when my buddy and his partner arrive on scene. The pick axe wielder exits the back of the bar, and stumbles around parking lot drunk. The two cops order him to drop his weapon. He trips over the side walk and goes down. My buddy closes the distance to take his weapon (assuming he is too drunk to be much of a threat). The drunk guy leaps to his feet screaming “Oh, now I’m going to fucking get you!” and charges. The second cop shoots the drunk three times. Drunk goes down and doesn’t stop screaming about how he’s going to get back up and get them, but is too drunk and now too shot to actually get up.
The cop in this situation only fired three times because the offender was getting too near to my buddy. Funny part of the story is somehow this drunk guy gets out of the hospital and takes my buddy to court. They tried to say that it was his duty to stop the other cop from shooting him. In court my buddy is asked why he didn’t stop the other officer from shooting the drunk. His response was “Stop him? I was too busy unholstering my own weapon to shoot him.”
Wait, why did the guy have a crowbar?
Did he really expect to de-escalate the situation with a crowbar? Lesson learned - Never bring a crowbar to a gunfight.
Now why are people mad about this? The guy that got shot is a dumbass who never learned to comply with authority and now has learned the hardway.
Simple thing with life, you try to do what you want when you want as often as you can. The other time you’re doing what you’re told. The key objective is to do what YOU want as much as YOU want while reducing being told what to do. The reality though is that you can’t do what YOU want all the time sometimes you gotta do what you’re told or bad shit happens.
[quote]altimus wrote:
Use of force continuum for dummies. Take suspect’s level of aggression and escalate one level higher to end the threat. Shithead raises a fireman’s axe at a police officer, shithead dies. What was everyone arguing about again?[/quote]
Reach in and grab my wallet. You know the one it says bad mutherfucker on it.
Its all real simple, you shoot until the threat is stopped, ie the perp is on the ground and no longer moving towards you.
[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Its all real simple, you shoot until the threat is stopped, ie the perp is on the ground and no longer moving towards you.[/quote]
What’s this about “towards you”? I would stop at “no longer moving”.
While it’s obvious what the guy who got shot about 10 times did wrong, it’s unclear to me why some insist that the police did everything correctly. Things can be learned from every situation and people should always strive for improvement. There is no need for anyone to be a prick to anyone else on the internet.
Some people are wondering whether it was necessary to shoot 10 times. I looked at the video again for the first time in a few days, and I realized they are probably right. More than likely shooting at him 10 times would have been unnecessary if the first cop who fired would have aimed center mass.
Center mass on most men is near their belly button. The cop with the dog had his pistol aimed much higher than center mass well before he fired and each time he fired his weapon. If someone is shot near the center of their mass, they tend to bend over or fall forward, making them less of a threat because their hands and arms go down to keep from falling on their face. If someone is shot well above center mass, the impact causes them to lean backward. When they lean backward, their hands and arms are usually extended in front of them in an attempt to regain their balance, so they are much more of a threat, especially if they have a pistol because they can still fire with some accuracy while they are leaning backward and getting shot in the chest.
There’s a good chance that the officers who fired their weapons did not want to shoot this guy and it is quite possible that they have lost sleep over this, and these are good things. Hopefully, it encourages them and everyone else to evaluate everything that happened. Look at what was done correctly and look at what could have been improved upon. I sincerely hope that their supervisors, their families and friends, and police around the world don’t look at this video and tell the officers involved that “they did everything perfectly” or “that was textbook police work.” In my opinion, there aren’t many things worse than being lied to when you are already feeling some doubt. The cops probably would much rather someone say something like “you did the best you could in that situation with the training you received” than be lied to. They’re cops, they’re human, they’re not perfect. Welcome to the club.
[quote]andy1977 wrote:
While it’s obvious what the guy who got shot about 10 times did wrong, it’s unclear to me why some insist that the police did everything correctly. Things can be learned from every situation and people should always strive for improvement. There is no need for anyone to be a prick to anyone else on the internet.
Some people are wondering whether it was necessary to shoot 10 times. I looked at the video again for the first time in a few days, and I realized they are probably right. More than likely shooting at him 10 times would have been unnecessary if the first cop who fired would have aimed center mass.
Center mass on most men is near their belly button. The cop with the dog had his pistol aimed much higher than center mass well before he fired and each time he fired his weapon. If someone is shot near the center of their mass, they tend to bend over or fall forward, making them less of a threat because their hands and arms go down to keep from falling on their face. If someone is shot well above center mass, the impact causes them to lean backward. When they lean backward, their hands and arms are usually extended in front of them in an attempt to regain their balance, so they are much more of a threat, especially if they have a pistol because they can still fire with some accuracy while they are leaning backward and getting shot in the chest.
There’s a good chance that the officers who fired their weapons did not want to shoot this guy and it is quite possible that they have lost sleep over this, and these are good things. Hopefully, it encourages them and everyone else to evaluate everything that happened. Look at what was done correctly and look at what could have been improved upon. I sincerely hope that their supervisors, their families and friends, and police around the world don’t look at this video and tell the officers involved that “they did everything perfectly” or “that was textbook police work.” In my opinion, there aren’t many things worse than being lied to when you are already feeling some doubt. The cops probably would much rather someone say something like “you did the best you could in that situation with the training you received” than be lied to. They’re cops, they’re human, they’re not perfect. Welcome to the club.
[/quote]
You would never aim a pistol at a person’s belly button unless they were wearing a ballistic vest and then hope you would get a hip or spinal cord shot.
The force of impact wouldn’t be substantial enough on it’s own to influence the way a person falls. We’re talking about handguns here.
That’s exactly what they will be told, and they shouldn’t have any doubt. Nothing ever goes down according to the book because it’s real life. This video will be analyzed, critiqued, and recommendations for improvement will be suggested as always, but at the end of all that, they will conclude it was a clean shoot.
Andy, cmon I’m being a jerk in the face of obnoxious naivety. It’s excellent police work because the cop did his job, when x happens the cops job is to respond with y. If he responds with y then he did a good job, and these things are not subjective. Police work is becoming less and less discretionary. It’s all policy and procedure. An outsider might be able to criticize the event, but cops need to apply very objective rules to their conduct. On the other point everything you said about firearms is total ignorance, center of mass is not belly button and shot placement does not affect a persons physical reaction to that shot
Hmmm, all of that military arms training failed to teach me I should shoot for the belly button.
Stupid Air Force.
Belly button is not center of mass. Prof X’s avatar(coincidentally right above mine so I’m going to use it as a solid example) is a picture of a human torso, note the belly button’s location would be at the lower end, and the center of mass is actually somewhere around his lower chest/sternum. There’s a reason it’s “2 in the chest 1 in the head.”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Hmmm, all of that military arms training failed to teach me I should shoot for the belly button.
Stupid Air Force.[/quote]
Obviously you gotta go for the belly button, cause if the dude has ripped abz, then the belly button is the only way in.
[quote]borrek wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Hmmm, all of that military arms training failed to teach me I should shoot for the belly button.
Stupid Air Force.[/quote]
Obviously you gotta go for the belly button, cause if the dude has ripped abz, then the belly button is the only way in.[/quote]
Good point. Just as Achilles was left hanging out to dry with that damn tendon, perps with shredded cores are most vulnerable at the belly button. Double or triple tap if perp has an “outtie”.
I said the center of mass was near the belly button not necessarily the belly button. Contrary to popular belief, the sternum is not center mass either. The sternum is well above center mass. Many people assume anything below the belt would not be considered a good target, and I’m not saying it is either, but the size of the upper thighs and glutes are substantial enough that if you try to shoot center mass and shoot low, there’s a good chance of a round still hitting the person. As most people know, a human’s center of mass is not the same as aiming to shoot at center mass. Center mass is used as something to aim for because there is a greater possibility of hitting the target if you aim for the center of where the bulk of it is. If the target is the average man standing up fairly straight with the front of his body facing you, center mass would be about half way between the lower throat and the tip of his dick. Clearly, this point won’t be the same on everyone, but for most, it’s a little above their belly button and well below their sternum. If you were going to shoot at Ronnie Coleman you may want to aim higher because he has enormous shoulders, lats, arms, etc. or you might want to aim lower because he has huge thighs and glutes. His narrow abdomen in proportion to the rest of him changes things, but how many people are built like Ronnie?
The Army did not teach me the chest was center mass. The difference between the armed forces is sometimes startling.
Yes, we are writing about handguns, and we are writing about shooting someone that is less than 2 meters away from the handguns. I’m aware that different weapons have different effects. The impact from most handguns at 20 meters is nearly nonexistent, especially if you shoot someone as fired up as that guy was. At 2 meters, the impact to his chest influenced which way his body went and it usually does when you put that many rounds into someone that quickly. He went backward and to his left and he was able to stay on his feet in a relatively erect position for a few more steps.
Of course, textbooks go out the window in real life, which is one of the reasons I hope nobody tells these cops that it was “textbook police work.”
For the record, I don’t think these cops were wrong. I know that there’s room for improvement in every thing we do and this is no exception. I am aware that there are holes in my argument and everyone else’s. This is why we analyze and discuss things, so all of us can try to improve.
[quote]andy1977 wrote:
I said the center of mass was near the belly button…
[/quote]
Honestly man, I don’t know what to say. I did, however, forward some of your responses to my dad who used to teach with Carlos Hathcock. He always gets a kick out of what people think. His response “What the hell is that guy talking about?”. This is a pretty thoroughly beaten horse, but there are very good reasons when attempting to kill someone you shoot them center mass (which we are referring to in the context of shooting, not ones literal physical center of gravitational mass), and it doesn’t even seem like I need to go into why when shooting someone you do attempt to kill them, especially when it is ones clearly defined job. Trust me (as a person who has been shot and is not a dumbass) the shooters response of turning away and going to the ground existed for the same reason churches include loud bells and incense. There is a strong psychosomatic effect of an incredibly loud and surprising noise paired with pain. Unless the rounds damaged the axeman’s nervous system all movements he made were voluntary while not necessarily on a totally conscious level. This is scientific fact not a debatable hypothesis. That is why when you shoot someone you need to keep shooting and why you can’t just kneecap them (which is totally ridiculous hollywood bullshit anyway) and call it a day. The goal of shooting is extreme internal organ damage paired with possible nervous system damaged, but really you’re just aiming to send someone into shock and then subsequent death.
The cops WILL be commended for their work. There will be an incredibly thorough official review and investigation, but their morale will be kept high because they followed their policies and procedures. Don’t tell me life is not textbook, that sounds so cheesy and naive, cops actions are dictated by much training and behavioral guidelines. When they employ that training ( ‘if-then’ type of stuff) then they are doing their job well regardless. Their training surprisingly enough does not consist of them sitting in campfires just brainstorming “hey guys I wonder what we should do if there is a zombie apocalypse.” Their superiors would simply refer them to the zombie apocalypse training manual which is section XXI of the General Doomsday Scenario Manual
[quote]borrek wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Hmmm, all of that military arms training failed to teach me I should shoot for the belly button.
Stupid Air Force.[/quote]
Obviously you gotta go for the belly button, cause if the dude has ripped abz, then the belly button is the only way in.[/quote]
In a home defense type of situation I would not aim for belly button. The excess lint built up will keep my semi-jacked hollow points from achieving ideal expansion. I believe the current school of thought on that subject teaches you to attempt a forward roll between your invaders legs to be followed up with a double-tap straight to the anus. This allows for ideal round ballistic profile and whatever wound is created will surely become infected with fecal material.
Edit: That is unless the invader’s glutes are too large. So for instance if it’s Ronnie Coleman (because he’s a great example to use in a shooting scenario) I don’t really know where his weakness would be. Well, I guess he was a cop right? So his weakness would probably be stupid people who don’t understand how he is supposed to do his job.
In the army we were shown how ineffective even an automatic rifle such as an M16 is at only 25 meters (about25 yards).
Full auto, 30 rounds, you’ll get about 5 or so into the target, and you could have sworn you were holding the rifle rock steady. Repetition would be the best way to go…you can still fire rapidly and keep the shots more on target.
I was a pretty good shot too. I got marksman (sounds cooler that it is…I got 33/40 on my PWT)
Oh yeah…where did Dijon run off to? Be sure to remove your tail from between your legs!
[quote]Nards wrote:
In the army we were shown how ineffective even an automatic rifle such as an M16 is at only 25 meters (about25 yards).
Full auto, 30 rounds, you’ll get about 5 or so into the target, and you could have sworn you were holding the rifle rock steady. Repetition would be the best way to go…you can still fire rapidly and keep the shots more on target.
I was a pretty good shot too. I got marksman (sounds cooler that it is…I got 33/40 on my PWT)
[/quote]
Yeah, I’d say (especially with a rifle) firing maybe twice a second, or at least once every second, you can remain accurate enough… at 25 yards. But let’s get down to brass tacks, does Nards vote for anus or belly button when shooting a ripped abs bodybuilder? The anus is the more technical shot, but it has the most hard science backing it up.
[quote]Nards wrote:
In the army we were shown how ineffective even an automatic rifle such as an M16 is at only 25 meters (about25 yards).
Full auto, 30 rounds, you’ll get about 5 or so into the target, and you could have sworn you were holding the rifle rock steady. Repetition would be the best way to go…you can still fire rapidly and keep the shots more on target.
I was a pretty good shot too. I got marksman (sounds cooler that it is…I got 33/40 on my PWT)
Oh yeah…where did Dijon run off to? Be sure to remove your tail from between your legs![/quote]
So did you have to put all 33 directly through the targets belly button, or just inside a proscribed radius?
You had to shoot all of your rounds right up the barrel of the other guy’s rifle of course.
That’s the best way to incapacitate an enemy.
[quote]Nards wrote:
You had to shoot all of your rounds right up the barrel of the other guy’s rifle of course.
That’s the best way to incapacitate an enemy.[/quote]
And of course killing is strictly forbidden in the Canadian Forces Code of Ethics so non-lethal shots are essential (but only if polite dialogue fails of course).
Of course.
I shouldn’t have said “enemy” there. In the Canadian army we were told to call them “friends you haven’t killed yet.”