• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cop kills a man, family is thinking about suing

I don't know, it looked like he was on top and was nearly in control. Was a shot to the head justified? Why not shoulder/arm etc.
 
It is strange how the cut away during the somewhat critical moment when the fight *begins*. That seems fishy to me. However, it is clear the man is disobeying the officer, and if he fired a gun while fighting with him, he deserves what he got. They have no case unless there are facts different from what we saw.
 
Originally posted by: Ramma2
I don't know, it looked like he was on top and was nearly in control. Was a shot to the head justified? Why not shoulder/arm etc.
Click to expand...

Just being "on top" and winning for a brief second is not proof that he was in control. If the suspect went 100% limp and allowed himself to be handcuffed I would agree with you.
 
I'm not a cop but from what I know about firearm training once somebody fires at you then you must shoot to kill. You never shoot to wound somebody because it's far too likely that they'll still be able to fire at you. I don't see anything wrong with what the officer did and I'm pretty sure a jury would see the same if it went to court. It sucks that the other guy died but if he hadn't fired at the officer he would likely still be alive today.
 
The guy pulled a gun on the cop, got a shot off and almost killed the cop and they are sueing? What a joke.
 
Originally posted by: datalink7
Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see a problem with this going to court.
Click to expand...

Outside of wasteing taxpayer money and the time of the members of the jury you mean?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a waste of money to go to court to establish whether the shooting that ended up in death is justified or not. There is a lot of taxpayer money and jury time wasted on much more trivial things. In all likelyhood, the judge will dismiss the case right away and no time will be wasted anyways, but they have the right to bring it in front of the judge and let him decide.
 
Ok I don';t even want to see that sh!t. I've seen way too much sh!t on these boards that makes me feel like humanity is garbage.
 
The dumbass pulled a gun on a cop in close proximity. He was asking for a death wish. The cop made the right decision because his life was on the line.
 
Originally posted by: Ramma2
I don't know, it looked like he was on top and was nearly in control. Was a shot to the head justified? Why not shoulder/arm etc.
Click to expand...

YOU DON'T SHOOT TO WOUND.
 
that family has some nerve!!!

i hope that they have to pay for ALL court costs, including those that the taxpayers are footing for the cops to defend himself.

:|
 
The gene pool has been cleansed. The family is lucky they cannot be sued by the state for raising a useless idiot who forced a cop to do something that will haunt him the rest of his days.
 
I'm surprised the cop continued to wrestle with him after that first shot. I would have shot him immediately
 
Originally posted by: bradruth
Originally posted by: Ramma2
I don't know, it looked like he was on top and was nearly in control. Was a shot to the head justified? Why not shoulder/arm etc.
Click to expand...

YOU DON'T SHOOT TO WOUND.
Click to expand...

Seriously.... there is no reason to shoot to wound unless there was a magical, easy to hit, non fatal spot that completely immobilized a person 100% of the time.


If someone broke into my house and fired a shot at me, and then slipped and fumbled the gun and bent over to pick it up, I sure as hell wouldnt be trying to shoot his leg... I have 17 shots and would use half of them.

Somewhat different situation, but if you fire a gun at a cop, or near a cop, or struggle with a cop while you have a gun, you deserve to die....
 
Originally posted by: Frackal
I'm surprised the cop continued to wrestle with him after that first shot. I would have shot him immediately
Click to expand...

I think he may have been trying to keep the guy from using the gun...
 
BTW, a head shot is the best way to make sure you immobilize your attacker and the cop had the advantage of being close enough to guarantee a hit to the head. Good for him.

I love how all the liberals always start pointing the finger at the cop and asking stupid questions like "why didn't he just shoot to wound". You don't have time to make calculations to wound someone when your adrenalin is pumping because the other guy is trying to kill you. You shoot to kill, PERIOD. Do any of you fools suggesting "a wounding" have any idea what a cop goes through in a situation like this? I can guarantee that you don't. I have an idea because I have a friend who is a cop and he was forced to shoot a man who pointed a gun at him, right on the front porch of his house and the assailant's mother was watching. I was the only person he talked to about it. It has been a great burden for him to live with knowing he killed someone at close range. He was in the military and in the first Gulf War and knows he has killed people....he just never actually saw them close up since he was shooting them from a helicopter and hes says this is totally different. I am just greatful my friend's training kicked in and he took his 3 shoots and came out only emotionally wounded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top