7 ms·

So. Four policemen put 40 bullets in somebody, and that's supposed to be "normal". What the hell?

by Fiahil 11y ago

hutzlibu 11y ago
It can be, if the somebody is armed and going berserk. But that was apparently not the case here.
czechdeveloper 11y ago
People don't fall dead after single bullet like in movies. In real scenarios 40 bullets are quite usual.
- justaman 11y ago
  This means each officer probably fired 10 rounds. This can be done in less than 5 seconds with a standard issue glock.
  - 33W 11y ago
    According to the article at least (which has been pointed out to be one-sided), at least one of the officers empties the first magazine and reloads. This would be 15-17 for the first officer, and the article also notes that the second car arrived after the shooting begun. I don't know everything that happened, and haven't developed an opinion overall, but it isn't as simple as rounds fired / number of officers.
- mtalantikite 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure the OP was trying to state that shooting to kill shouldn't be the normal thing police do.
  - BillinghamJ 11y ago
    There is no such thing as shooting to not kill. Officers are (correctly) trained that if they are in a situation which warrants them shooting, they should use all of the bullets currently loaded into their gun. The issue is that in the US, officers seem to come to the conclusion that killing the person is warranted way too quickly.
    - mtalantikite 11y ago
      I meant using their firearm as their first response before even knowing what the situation is. Tamir Rice was shot by police before the car even finished coming to a stop at the scene.
    - chillingeffect 11y ago
      Source? This source [1] [2], a police detective with 26 years of experience, contradicts it directly: "Officers are told to shoot until the threat is neutralized, down, and no longer a threat to themselves or the public. They are not trained to empty the magazine into a target." [1] http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/08/19/police-protocol-your-questions-answered http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/08/19/police-protocol-your-q... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Brooks_%28journalist%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Brooks_%28journalist%29
      - beeboop 11y ago
        I think it's possible for you both to be correct. The definition of "neutralized" could be taught to officers as "you are 10000% sure he is dead", which is only done by firing your entire magazine into them. So while not explicitly trained to empty a magazine, it could be taught implicitly. I get the impression there are lots of "gotchas" like this in police training. Evidence in many police shootings seems to suggest emptying their magazine is normal.
    - Xylakant 11y ago
      Obviously then the US police officers are trained badly. For 2012 the stats for the german police are: 36 bullets fired at humans, 20 injured, 8 dead. 54 bullets fired as warning shots. So it's possible to incapacitate. Stats for other european countries are similar. Firing 40 bullets at a single human, some of them after the suspect has been hit multiple times and is on the ground (and still missing the majority of shots) seems excessive.
      - ceejayoz 11y ago
        Meanwhile, the NYPD fires 16 times in a single incident and hits nine bystanders. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander...
- Xylakant 11y ago
  Shots fired at persons by the german police in 2014 (total): 46 [1]. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_in_Deutschland#Zahlen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_in_...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 11y ago
    And overall gun crime in Germany is lower by, what, two orders of magnitude? Germany's shot rate isn't lower simply because individual German police are stingier with their bullets.
    - Xylakant 11y ago
      No, it's certainly not that simple. It's still a very stark contrast that the SF police department fired a years supply of bullets in a single incident. I picked 2014 because it's the last available stats atm, and it's actually slightly above average. On average, per use of deadly force, the german police fires about 1/20th - 1/40th in terms of number of bullets. One reason for that is that the german police is trained to use deadly force as last resort and rather retreat than fire. Shooting 40 bullets at a person in a park instead of trying to clear the area is unlikely to happen here. (or anywhere in europe, for that matter)
      - tptacek 11y ago
        When you fire a gun at someone, your goal is to kill them. If you're confronting an armed subject and you manage only to wound them, then not only are you making it possible for the to shoot you back, but you're making it overwhelmingly likely that they will --- who could blame them for trying desperately to save their own lives? So to me, 1 bullet, 20 bullets, 40 bullets, who cares? Dead is dead. If you don't want police shooting people by mistake, disarm the police. My attitude towards this might be different from a lot of other nerds. In my experience, nerds tend to be firearms enthusiasts. I hate guns.
tptacek 11y ago
That the police shot this person at all is a tragedy, but the number of bullets --- a detail reported brethlessly in all police shooting stories --- isn't particularly important. Police training demands they shoot to kill. The notion of using a firearm merely to wound is mostly a TV fiction. Especially with a subject they believe to be armed (as with this case, where someone called 911 reporting a gun), if the police start shooting, they're going to make sure the target can't react. Their concern will be that even a fatal shot might leave the target with 10-15 seconds with which to get off a shot in reply. That this is probably a reasonable thing for the police to do is, for me, a strong argument that most police should not be armed with guns. But that gets us into an unproductive discussion about American gun culture and gun control.
- yoo1I 11y ago
  > Police training demands they shoot to kill. Something that is incredibly fucking stupid, and there are plenty of countries who do very well without this misguided use of of lethal weapons.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    If you are saying that it's incredibly stupid to routinely put police into situations where they have less than 5 seconds to decide whether or not they are required to kill someone to protect themselves or their partners, I agree. I think we should disarm most police.
    - yoo1I 11y ago
      Well, obviously the less police and the general public are put in this position the better, and when there is a gunman running around the neighborhood, there better be police to subdue, and yes, if it's required to save other lives, kill him. The point here, though is not to deny police their right to self defense, the point is to train them in a way that their first action to exercise that right is not with as much force as possible, but with as much force as is necessary. Clearly emptying multiple magazines into someone speaks of fear, rather than necessity, and I do not wish to be policed and protected by the fearful. But to your larger point, I agree: building a society in which there is little to none violence is a desirable goal.
rlonstein 11y ago
Stress. Under stress the fight-or-flight response kicks in and a lot of fine motor skills and training goes out the window. An instructor of mine said that when the adrenaline hits, at best you have half of your trained skill, lose a lot of fine motor control, and won’t be able to think coherently for thirty to sixty seconds. You’ll do what was trained to the point of being automatic or is simple. Police officers typically get somewhere around one hundred hours of firearms training during academy and anywhere from eight to fifty hours of annual retraining, practice, and/or recertification. This is a lot less than needed to become or remain proficient. Had someone asked any of the officers immediately afterward how many times they pulled the trigger they probably would have answered two or three times or that they don’t know.
- pm24601 11y ago
  then they probably need more training or they shouldn't be police. As a civilian, we are expected to exercise restrain when using lethal force when defending ourselves. Multiple bullets and reloading would be used as evidence as intent to murder.

So. Four policemen put 40 bullets in somebody, and that's supposed to be "normal". What the hell?

by Fiahil 11y ago

So. Four policemen put 40 bullets in somebody, and that's supposed to be "normal". What the hell?

hutzlibu 11y ago

It can be, if the somebody is armed and going berserk. But that was apparently not the case here.

czechdeveloper 11y ago

People don't fall dead after single bullet like in movies. In real scenarios 40 bullets are quite usual.

justaman 11y ago
This means each officer probably fired 10 rounds. This can be done in less than 5 seconds with a standard issue glock.
- 33W 11y ago
  According to the article at least (which has been pointed out to be one-sided), at least one of the officers empties the first magazine and reloads. This would be 15-17 for the first officer, and the article also notes that the second car arrived after the shooting begun. I don't know everything that happened, and haven't developed an opinion overall, but it isn't as simple as rounds fired / number of officers.
mtalantikite 11y ago
I'm pretty sure the OP was trying to state that shooting to kill shouldn't be the normal thing police do.
- BillinghamJ 11y ago
  There is no such thing as shooting to not kill. Officers are (correctly) trained that if they are in a situation which warrants them shooting, they should use all of the bullets currently loaded into their gun. The issue is that in the US, officers seem to come to the conclusion that killing the person is warranted way too quickly.
  - mtalantikite 11y ago
    I meant using their firearm as their first response before even knowing what the situation is. Tamir Rice was shot by police before the car even finished coming to a stop at the scene.
  - chillingeffect 11y ago
    Source? This source [1] [2], a police detective with 26 years of experience, contradicts it directly: "Officers are told to shoot until the threat is neutralized, down, and no longer a threat to themselves or the public. They are not trained to empty the magazine into a target." [1] http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/08/19/police-protocol-your-questions-answered http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/08/19/police-protocol-your-q... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Brooks_%28journalist%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Brooks_%28journalist%29
    - beeboop 11y ago
      I think it's possible for you both to be correct. The definition of "neutralized" could be taught to officers as "you are 10000% sure he is dead", which is only done by firing your entire magazine into them. So while not explicitly trained to empty a magazine, it could be taught implicitly. I get the impression there are lots of "gotchas" like this in police training. Evidence in many police shootings seems to suggest emptying their magazine is normal.
  - Xylakant 11y ago
    Obviously then the US police officers are trained badly. For 2012 the stats for the german police are: 36 bullets fired at humans, 20 injured, 8 dead. 54 bullets fired as warning shots. So it's possible to incapacitate. Stats for other european countries are similar. Firing 40 bullets at a single human, some of them after the suspect has been hit multiple times and is on the ground (and still missing the majority of shots) seems excessive.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      Meanwhile, the NYPD fires 16 times in a single incident and hits nine bystanders. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander...
Xylakant 11y ago
Shots fired at persons by the german police in 2014 (total): 46 [1]. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_in_Deutschland#Zahlen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_in_...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 11y ago
  And overall gun crime in Germany is lower by, what, two orders of magnitude? Germany's shot rate isn't lower simply because individual German police are stingier with their bullets.
  - Xylakant 11y ago
    No, it's certainly not that simple. It's still a very stark contrast that the SF police department fired a years supply of bullets in a single incident. I picked 2014 because it's the last available stats atm, and it's actually slightly above average. On average, per use of deadly force, the german police fires about 1/20th - 1/40th in terms of number of bullets. One reason for that is that the german police is trained to use deadly force as last resort and rather retreat than fire. Shooting 40 bullets at a person in a park instead of trying to clear the area is unlikely to happen here. (or anywhere in europe, for that matter)
    - tptacek 11y ago
      When you fire a gun at someone, your goal is to kill them. If you're confronting an armed subject and you manage only to wound them, then not only are you making it possible for the to shoot you back, but you're making it overwhelmingly likely that they will --- who could blame them for trying desperately to save their own lives? So to me, 1 bullet, 20 bullets, 40 bullets, who cares? Dead is dead. If you don't want police shooting people by mistake, disarm the police. My attitude towards this might be different from a lot of other nerds. In my experience, nerds tend to be firearms enthusiasts. I hate guns.

tptacek 11y ago

That the police shot this person at all is a tragedy, but the number of bullets --- a detail reported brethlessly in all police shooting stories --- isn't particularly important. Police training demands they shoot to kill. The notion of using a firearm merely to wound is mostly a TV fiction. Especially with a subject they believe to be armed (as with this case, where someone called 911 reporting a gun), if the police start shooting, they're going to make sure the target can't react. Their concern will be that even a fatal shot might leave the target with 10-15 seconds with which to get off a shot in reply. That this is probably a reasonable thing for the police to do is, for me, a strong argument that most police should not be armed with guns. But that gets us into an unproductive discussion about American gun culture and gun control.

yoo1I 11y ago
> Police training demands they shoot to kill. Something that is incredibly fucking stupid, and there are plenty of countries who do very well without this misguided use of of lethal weapons.
- tptacek 11y ago
  If you are saying that it's incredibly stupid to routinely put police into situations where they have less than 5 seconds to decide whether or not they are required to kill someone to protect themselves or their partners, I agree. I think we should disarm most police.
  - yoo1I 11y ago
    Well, obviously the less police and the general public are put in this position the better, and when there is a gunman running around the neighborhood, there better be police to subdue, and yes, if it's required to save other lives, kill him. The point here, though is not to deny police their right to self defense, the point is to train them in a way that their first action to exercise that right is not with as much force as possible, but with as much force as is necessary. Clearly emptying multiple magazines into someone speaks of fear, rather than necessity, and I do not wish to be policed and protected by the fearful. But to your larger point, I agree: building a society in which there is little to none violence is a desirable goal.

rlonstein 11y ago

Stress. Under stress the fight-or-flight response kicks in and a lot of fine motor skills and training goes out the window. An instructor of mine said that when the adrenaline hits, at best you have half of your trained skill, lose a lot of fine motor control, and won’t be able to think coherently for thirty to sixty seconds. You’ll do what was trained to the point of being automatic or is simple. Police officers typically get somewhere around one hundred hours of firearms training during academy and anywhere from eight to fifty hours of annual retraining, practice, and/or recertification. This is a lot less than needed to become or remain proficient. Had someone asked any of the officers immediately afterward how many times they pulled the trigger they probably would have answered two or three times or that they don’t know.

pm24601 11y ago
then they probably need more training or they shouldn't be police. As a civilian, we are expected to exercise restrain when using lethal force when defending ourselves. Multiple bullets and reloading would be used as evidence as intent to murder.