Only the police should have guns
MRS: 16 shots, at point-blank range, and he hit his man-sized, non-moving target with less than 50% of the shots!
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 25th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Having spent a fair amount of time in the urban crime environment observing and walking around with city cops…I can tell you that it’s not a mystery to the bad guys that if you’re on the ground and the officer says let me see your hands and you refuse and then make a furtive movement…you’re gonna get shot a whole bunch. Yeah it’s concerning that the cop can’t hit something two feet away more than half the time, but there’s nothing on that video that indicates justifiable or not.
The other two shootings sound justifiable–but Chicago will still pay because they engaged in negligent retention.
October 25th, 2011 at 11:04 am
The hit ratio is not the most troubling issue in this shooting.
October 25th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
50 percent (more or less) is not all that bad but… having to fire 16 rounds is. Where did the other nine rounds go?
As for the back shots, the cop could have been shooting and the guy turned fast due to the hits and that is how he got hit in the back.
This is especially true as the autopsy showed the fatal ones were from the back and thus the ones in front were not.
October 25th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Except that the video shows that that is not the case. From the original article that MRS linked to:
The fatal shots to the back were fired while the victim was proned out on the ground.