4 ms·

> the number of shots fired here from 7+ individuals is not unusual in the slightest what's the normal number of shots one should expect to be fired at a compl

by evan_ 4y ago

> the number of shots fired here from 7+ individuals is not unusual in the slightest what's the normal number of shots one should expect to be fired at a completely uninvolved party for no reason by 7+ police officers? I've got a number in my head.

Alupis 4y ago
I should have been prepared for the pushback I suppose. No, 107 shots is not unusual. The events under-which these shots were fired was unusual, but 107 shots being fired from 7+ individuals is not unusual. Averaging about 15 rounds per individual (if only 7 were present, the quote says at least 7), this "firefight" (I realize there was no return fire, just using generally accepted terms) was over in seconds. Anyone with any iota of firearms training can attest to this. If I had to guess, one individual initiated fire (jumpy, poor training, thought they saw something, who knows), and then the rest fell back into their training and opened fire as well. That is exactly how it is supposed to work, and not just for LE. In all firearms training - be it military, law enforcement, and even civilian - you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat. This isn't the movies, you don't "just shoot them in the leg" or whatever uninformed slogan is popular these days. As I previously made a disclosure that I was not commenting on the events themselves, only the specific comment that sought to use the round count as some sort of outrage data point.
- evan_ 4y ago
  > I realize there was no return fire > the rest fell back into their training and opened fire > That is exactly how it is supposed to work > you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat This is very unusual! I don't give a single shit that they were trained to do it! If the training is to just start shooting and let God sort it out- THAT'S BAD! I find it very unusual that you can just randomly be annihilated by a death squad while driving to work!
  - Alupis 4y ago
    So we agree the events were unusual? Good because that's been my disclaimer all along. What is not unusual, is given that there was a shooting, 107 rounds from 7+ individual is completely normal. Do not use round count as a data point to attack events like this. It only diminishes your actual argument, which I assume is this event never should have happened in the first place.
    - evan_ 4y ago
      Here's what you sound like- "Yes obviously they were trained to shoot random bystanders as many times as possible, how else could they be sure that they killed the random bystanders? If they only shot THE RANDOM INNOCENT BYSTANDERS 14 times each instead of 15, there's a dangerous possibility that THE RANDOM INNOCENT BYSTANDERS will not be killed as completely as possible!" If this is how they're trained then it's bad training! Please kindly fuck all the way off!
      - Alupis 4y ago
        I'm unsure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you're just trying to sensationalize what I've said. Neither are good... and this is quickly devolving from a discussion about being well-informed to a flame war. Let's not flame war please. Nothing I've said says anything about shooting bystanders. What I have said, over and over again, is using round count as some sort of point is very misguided. Given the events of that day already occurred, it is very unsurprising 107 rounds were fired. That does not make it right that any rounds were fired at all. I'm sorry if you cannot understand this nuance.
        evan_ 4y ago
        > What I have said, over and over again, is using round count as some sort of point is very misguided. You have said that over and over again. You aren't supporting that point in any way though, you're just saying it over and over. You seem to think that "police training" or "firearms training 101" or whatever is a fundamental, unchangable law of the universe. "Of course they shot at a random bystander 107 times, gravity is 9.8m/s^2, what do you expect?" In reality this "training" was developed by psychopaths who want to ensure that cops are held to a different set of standards than the rest of us unwashed masses. It's not a natural rule of the universe! It can be questioned and changed! Imagine if after the single "jumpy" cop took one shot the other cops said "hey knock that off, there's no threat here." That seems to be wholly against this precious training you're willing to go to the mat for, but I'm expected to believe it would be a worse outcome than shooting innocent bystanders 107 times? Get the boot out of your mouth.
- bhk 4y ago
  > then the rest fell back into their training and opened fire as well So what exactly are they trained to do? When you hear gunshots, start shooting at something?
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > In all firearms training - be it military, law enforcement, and even civilian - you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat. In any competent firearms training you are trained to actually assess the threat first, and are absolutely not trained to magdump at the first vaguely-scary-looking thing and then have no ammunition left for subsequent threats.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    > In any competent firearms training you are trained to actually assess the threat first Yes, this is true. I think it can be very easily assumed once a single officer opens fire at a moving vehicle the rest will assume a threat was assessed. The focus of this thread should clearly be on why the first officer perceived a threat this wrongly - not how many rounds were fired. > and are absolutely not trained to magdump at the first vaguely-scary-looking thing That's not what happened here. > and then have no ammunition left for subsequent threats. For anyone that has little or no firearms training - people almost never carry only a single magazine, particularly in a tactical environment (meaning you carry a gun for a living). These officers probably had 2 or 3 spare magazines on their person.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      > I think it can be very easily assumed once a single officer opens fire at a moving vehicle the rest will assume a threat was assessed. The flipside of that is that individual officers have greater opportunity to be more strategic and deliberate with their shots. > The focus of this thread should clearly be on why the first officer perceived a threat this wrongly - not how many rounds were fired. The number of rounds fired is itself a problem, on top of them being fired without anything vaguely resembling good cause. It suggests blind fear on the shooters' part rather than actually assessing and verifying a threat. > That's not what happened here. That's exactly what happened here. Cops got scared of a cop-killing rogue cop, said cops saw something that vaguely resembled said cop-killer's vehicle, said cops immediately panicked and emptied their magazines at it. > These officers probably had 2 or 3 spare magazines on their person. Which one would then have to reload. Reload time might not seem like that big of a deal, but it still adds precious seconds that would mean the difference between life and death - you know, assuming this was an actual threat.

by evan_ 4y ago

Alupis 4y ago

I should have been prepared for the pushback I suppose. No, 107 shots is not unusual. The events under-which these shots were fired was unusual, but 107 shots being fired from 7+ individuals is not unusual. Averaging about 15 rounds per individual (if only 7 were present, the quote says at least 7), this "firefight" (I realize there was no return fire, just using generally accepted terms) was over in seconds. Anyone with any iota of firearms training can attest to this. If I had to guess, one individual initiated fire (jumpy, poor training, thought they saw something, who knows), and then the rest fell back into their training and opened fire as well. That is exactly how it is supposed to work, and not just for LE. In all firearms training - be it military, law enforcement, and even civilian - you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat. This isn't the movies, you don't "just shoot them in the leg" or whatever uninformed slogan is popular these days. As I previously made a disclosure that I was not commenting on the events themselves, only the specific comment that sought to use the round count as some sort of outrage data point.

evan_ 4y ago
> I realize there was no return fire > the rest fell back into their training and opened fire > That is exactly how it is supposed to work > you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat This is very unusual! I don't give a single shit that they were trained to do it! If the training is to just start shooting and let God sort it out- THAT'S BAD! I find it very unusual that you can just randomly be annihilated by a death squad while driving to work!
- Alupis 4y ago
  So we agree the events were unusual? Good because that's been my disclaimer all along. What is not unusual, is given that there was a shooting, 107 rounds from 7+ individual is completely normal. Do not use round count as a data point to attack events like this. It only diminishes your actual argument, which I assume is this event never should have happened in the first place.
  - evan_ 4y ago
    Here's what you sound like- "Yes obviously they were trained to shoot random bystanders as many times as possible, how else could they be sure that they killed the random bystanders? If they only shot THE RANDOM INNOCENT BYSTANDERS 14 times each instead of 15, there's a dangerous possibility that THE RANDOM INNOCENT BYSTANDERS will not be killed as completely as possible!" If this is how they're trained then it's bad training! Please kindly fuck all the way off!
    - Alupis 4y ago
      I'm unsure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you're just trying to sensationalize what I've said. Neither are good... and this is quickly devolving from a discussion about being well-informed to a flame war. Let's not flame war please. Nothing I've said says anything about shooting bystanders. What I have said, over and over again, is using round count as some sort of point is very misguided. Given the events of that day already occurred, it is very unsurprising 107 rounds were fired. That does not make it right that any rounds were fired at all. I'm sorry if you cannot understand this nuance.
      - evan_ 4y ago
        > What I have said, over and over again, is using round count as some sort of point is very misguided. You have said that over and over again. You aren't supporting that point in any way though, you're just saying it over and over. You seem to think that "police training" or "firearms training 101" or whatever is a fundamental, unchangable law of the universe. "Of course they shot at a random bystander 107 times, gravity is 9.8m/s^2, what do you expect?" In reality this "training" was developed by psychopaths who want to ensure that cops are held to a different set of standards than the rest of us unwashed masses. It's not a natural rule of the universe! It can be questioned and changed! Imagine if after the single "jumpy" cop took one shot the other cops said "hey knock that off, there's no threat here." That seems to be wholly against this precious training you're willing to go to the mat for, but I'm expected to believe it would be a worse outcome than shooting innocent bystanders 107 times? Get the boot out of your mouth.
bhk 4y ago
> then the rest fell back into their training and opened fire as well So what exactly are they trained to do? When you hear gunshots, start shooting at something?
yellowapple 4y ago
> In all firearms training - be it military, law enforcement, and even civilian - you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat. In any competent firearms training you are trained to actually assess the threat first, and are absolutely not trained to magdump at the first vaguely-scary-looking thing and then have no ammunition left for subsequent threats.
- Alupis 4y ago
  > In any competent firearms training you are trained to actually assess the threat first Yes, this is true. I think it can be very easily assumed once a single officer opens fire at a moving vehicle the rest will assume a threat was assessed. The focus of this thread should clearly be on why the first officer perceived a threat this wrongly - not how many rounds were fired. > and are absolutely not trained to magdump at the first vaguely-scary-looking thing That's not what happened here. > and then have no ammunition left for subsequent threats. For anyone that has little or no firearms training - people almost never carry only a single magazine, particularly in a tactical environment (meaning you carry a gun for a living). These officers probably had 2 or 3 spare magazines on their person.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > I think it can be very easily assumed once a single officer opens fire at a moving vehicle the rest will assume a threat was assessed. The flipside of that is that individual officers have greater opportunity to be more strategic and deliberate with their shots. > The focus of this thread should clearly be on why the first officer perceived a threat this wrongly - not how many rounds were fired. The number of rounds fired is itself a problem, on top of them being fired without anything vaguely resembling good cause. It suggests blind fear on the shooters' part rather than actually assessing and verifying a threat. > That's not what happened here. That's exactly what happened here. Cops got scared of a cop-killing rogue cop, said cops saw something that vaguely resembled said cop-killer's vehicle, said cops immediately panicked and emptied their magazines at it. > These officers probably had 2 or 3 spare magazines on their person. Which one would then have to reload. Reload time might not seem like that big of a deal, but it still adds precious seconds that would mean the difference between life and death - you know, assuming this was an actual threat.