Author Topic: It doesn't pay to kill police officers (Read 949 times)

Neubob · « **on:** October 01, 2006, 04:31:02 PM »

Shot 68 times by swat

A lot of you are gonna say that this is just. Some of you may mention that the suspect was deprived of his rights to due process. No trial, no jury, etc.... Personally, I think it's scary when law enforcement officers act on their anger, whether or not the guy did it. For the sake of the deceased Cop, and for justice, I really hope they got the right guy.

Delirium · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2006, 04:43:51 PM »

Quote

“That’s all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more,” Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd

I'm not so concerned they killed the man, or even the amount of lead they threw at the guy. Its the statement above, long after the incident, that shows the complete lack of control (or lack of respect for due process) long after the 'adrenaline rush' had passed. It shows deliberate intent...

Was the guy a dirt-bag? Heck yes, and I'm happy he is dead... but adding comments like that is an easy way for people to question their judgement.

straffo · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2006, 04:46:21 PM »

It's the weight of the bullets that kill now ?

Vulcan · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2006, 04:50:29 PM »

It shows complete stupidity.

What are you guys hiring for cops these days? Maybe if they interviewed some newbie you'd expect the to say that. While I fully support the police actions that sheriff needs to be 'retired' or taught some subtlety.

lukster · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2006, 04:51:30 PM »

That statement was foolish and inappropriate. They knew who they were after and found him hiding with a gun in his hand, 68 bullets were not inappropriate.

storch · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2006, 04:59:12 PM »

without knowing the specifics, perhaps there is a good reason, my question is why did they miss 40% of the time?

Tarmac · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2006, 05:02:34 PM »

Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting 68 times. The number of bullets is irrelevant, it's the initial one, plus any that may have been fired after he was no longer a threat, that should be questioned.

The media loves to play up these events with high bullet counts because they sound on the surface like excessive force. But if the guy was surrounded by a SWAT team with 8 members, each with an automatic weapon or 12 buckshot pellets per shell, there could easily be 68 holes in the guy before he has a chance to hit the ground.

Squire · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2006, 05:33:04 PM »

He was armed, and they were not about to let him shoot again. It wasnt like the guy surrendered and was then executed. 100 rounds fired is not unexpected from a tactical team armed with automatic weapons. Mr. Bone Head should have surrendered while he could.

As for the statement, do you know the context? maybe he was caught off guard or overheard saying that, in any case, its not what you say to the media, ok, but really, tough cookies, im sure it was a long day for all of them..and roasting the guy over that is silly. Be more concerned that no other police were injured than what was said to some reporter looking for a headline.

tikky · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2006, 05:55:00 PM »

pwned

FiLtH · « **Reply #9 on:** October 01, 2006, 06:51:25 PM »

Im thinking the sheriff was p/o about losing a good man and a friend to a POS like that. If it were me Id have gone back to the station for more ammo. Good for him..no PC BS here!

Delirium · « **Reply #10 on:** October 01, 2006, 07:23:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Squire
As for the statement, do you know the context?

I don't think that is acceptable in any context... except for the locker room of the police station. If it was obtained by some 'hidden microphone', I would agree... otherwise, this person needs a reprimand.

BTW · « **Reply #11 on:** October 01, 2006, 07:39:12 PM »

I'm saving my outrage and sympathy. I'm not going to use it up on Freeland. Just call me frugal.

lukster · « **Reply #12 on:** October 01, 2006, 10:07:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
without knowing the specifics, perhaps there is a good reason, my question is why did they miss 40% of the time?

I took a concealed handgun class a few years ago. I remember being taught that among Dallas Police officers something like 67% of their first shots fired missed. Might have been a higher percentage but it was at least that.

Debonair · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2006, 10:17:09 PM »

spray & pray is for nooobs

storch · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2006, 11:13:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
I took a concealed handgun class a few years ago. I remember being taught that among Dallas Police officers something like 67% of their first shots fired missed. Might have been a higher percentage but it was at least that.

that's alarming. course the police in my town can't shoot to well either. they sure can whip up traffic violations though.