Re: Knife-wielding Man Shot In New Orleans


Wayne Dobson wrote:

<snip>
> > > > then assessing. How can you instantly assess the amount of internal
> > > > dammage?
> > >
> > > That is irrelevant.
> >
> >
> > So you agree that once the shooting needs to start is is reasonable to
> > expect a large number of bullets to hit the suspect that relates
> > directly to the number of officers that have a clear shot?
>
> What is to be expected and the proper way of going about things, are two
> seperate issues which you are getting confused by.


Care to do any explaining?


> > Well that is progress.
>
> Yes, you have progressed to putting your own words into my mouth.


Do you see this "?"

That is called a question mark.

It indicates that a question is being asked.

Boy you are dumb. And now I see that is the real problem here.


> > >You would need to instantly assess if you had enough
> > > time to back away, without plugging here again. X-Ray vision isn't
> requied
> > > for that.
> >
> > What are you trying to say? When the police find a lunatic with a
> > knife and the intent to harm others they should back away?
>
> I would back out of the confined area, with my weapon trained on the nut, if
> needs be.


And when he runs?


> > What if that results in the lunatic getting away and killing a child or
> two?
>
> It wouldn't, unless this lump of lard was a cross between Jabba the Hut and
> Linford Christie.


Whatever. You are passing judgement on something when you don't know
the details.


> > > > In times like this the police should shoot only when they
> > > > _must_ use lethal force in order to save a life and the proper thing
> to
> > > > do is continue to use lethal force until the bad guy is clearly no
> > > > longer a threat.
> > >
> > > You've been reading police propoganda.
> >
> > No I have been there and experienced on of these standoffs myself.
>
> Therefore you think you are qualified to assess how they should be handled.


It means I understand the principles that confuse you.


> Interesting.
>
> > But thank you for dismissing the whole idea.
>
> You aren't qualified to make the judgements you are making.


No Wayne that would be you. You are the one saying that they don't
have a brain because they couldn't fix it. You are the one who thinks
a magic wand will always make it better.


> > > > Otherwise a fellow officer or a civilian might die needlessly.
> > >
> > > You've been well indoctrinated.
> >
> >
> > Is that your idea of an argument?
>
> No.


Well are you going to deal with the issues I have raised or not?


<snip>
> > > > You are a fool if you think you can accurately assess the effects of
> > > > your first shot before the other guy takes action in the event that
> > > > your first shot was not effective.
> > >
> > > It's interesting that you call me a fool for having beliefs based on
> > > evidence.
> >
> >
> > Rather I call you a fool if you believe foolish things. When I asked
> > you 'how can you instantly assess the amount of internal damage?' you
> > said the question was irrelevant.
>
> Because X-Ray vision is not required to assess whether or not the threat is
> still an immediate enough threat.


Then what is? You pull the trigger and the bad guy is still lunging
with the knife. How do you know if he is already dead or needs to be
shot again?


> > Yet now you say you have evidence
> > that the shooter can know the effects of the first shot before the
> > suspect can take action. Okay lets see your evidence.
>
> I can tell by the distance and posture and other subtle clues, whether
> someone poses an immediate threat. It comes from "experience" and
> "training."


Good way to get yourself shot.


> > > > Often these standoffs involve suspects with guns of their own.
> > >
> > > This wasn't one of those times.
> >
> >
> > Yet it did involve a suspect with a deadly weapon. Now the police have
> > a special magic wand that tells them ahead of time who has a concealed
> > gun and who doesn't so it is perfectly safe for them to ignore the
> > possibility when the wand tells them they can.
>
> I've faced people with concealed weapons. When they got aggressive, I
> factored in that possibility, so that they had no range to deploy. You
> really ought to train in something.


You really ought to grow a brain.


> > > > You don't assess when doing so risks getting shot.
> > >
> > > Assessing would not risk your getting shot, unless you are not properly
> > > trained or your brain is incapable of parrallel processing.
> >
> >
> > But you are not judging are you? LOL! No you are just voicing a
> > suspision.
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if you are on drugs.


But you wonder that about everyone.


> > > > Even if the bad guy just has a knife how can you know if
> > > > your first shot did enough damage to prevent him from extending his
> > > > arm?
> > >
> > > You control the space.
> >
> >
> > How can you do that without firing? It is your turn to do some
> > explaining.
>
> You adjust your proximity to the threat. Train in something, please. You
> really need the instruction. BTW, how come you didn't explain anything when
> it was your turn?


I can't help it if you don't know how to read.


> > > > If you guess wrong then someone else dies too.
> > >
> > > Then don't put yourself in a position where you have to guess.
> >
> >
> > And where do you get those?
>
> Have you been drinking?


Frirst you answer my question.


> > See what I mean about your idealistic expectations?
>
> No. You would have to explain what you mean. My psychic powers are waning.


They only work when you judge some other man's standoff huh? You think
any problem can be solved by controling the distance. That is
idealistic.


> > > > > > You plug the target in center mass and then a few more times to
> make
> > > > > > sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are going to tell me what you do, you need to use the
> pronoun,
> > > "I."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You are 100% correct. That was the right thing to do.
> > >
> > > Why was it right?
> >
> >
> > Because if you must kill a bad guy it does not matter if you overkill
> > them but getting someone else killed needlessly is a big deal.
>
> Overkill does matter. It is called something like "unjustified homicide,"
> or something like that.


No moron. Once you kill someone it does not matter one bit how much
you shoot them. They won't be using their body anymore but the life
you save does matter.


> > It is
> > much better to error on the side of overkill rather than putting
> > innocents or teammates at risk
>
> Acting competently in the first instance would be better, still.


You are delusional.


> > > > Naturally you
> > > > would do something else so he shouldn't attribute that to you.
> > >
> > > Yes, I do not subscribe to the school of "spray and pray,"
> >
> >
> > He doesn't either.
>
> When did he say that?


So now we must assume that he does unless he says he does not?
Whatever moron.


<hot air snipped>

.

Relevant Pages

  • will you undertake on the morning, if Tommy hastily remarks the newcomer
    ... Just banging ... except for a shot for example the sentence is too parliamentary for ... He'll be contrasting no matter how mild Pervis until his soil ... Mustapha decorate that? ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Drinking & driving
    ... it is not a matter of balance being 'shot' as you put it. ... >> quite accurately, to a slight unsteadiness, nothing more than that. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: Increased gun crime in Britain
    ... rifle and shot the bandit in the back. ... who were no longer representing any kind of threat. ... The people who shot the criminals were not "lawful authorities". ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Drinking & driving
    ... it is not a matter of balance being 'shot' as you put it. ... In other words, your balance was shot. ... Your reaction time and thinking time are greatly increased ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: How Many Have Switched?
    ... and ultimately being paid no matter what format I use. ... I haven't used film since. ... Both were shot by pros. ... > "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, ...
    (rec.photo.technique.people)