quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Police across the United States shot and killed an average of one unarmed person every three days during the first five months of this year, according to an investigation by The Washington Post.

The average was based on the fact that 49 people who were not carrying a weapon of any kind were shot to death during the first 151 days of 2015.

Among these victims, two-thirds were black or Hispanic.

In addition to the 49 unarmed individuals, another 13 carrying toy guns were shot to death by law enforcement.

The Post investigation also found that at least 385 people—whether armed or unarmed—were shot and killed by police nationwide during the first five months of this year, an average of more than two a day. “That is more than twice the rate of fatal police shootings tallied by the federal government over the past decade, a count that officials concede is incomplete,” Kimberly Kindy wrote for the Post article, which had five additional reporters contributing to the story.

Jim Bueermann, a former police chief and president of the Police Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving law enforcement, told the Post such “shootings are grossly under­reported.”

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/police-shoot-to-death-one-unarmed-person-every-3-days-in-us-150602?news=856625


Thankfully we have constitutional protections eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Are you suggesting that all of the deaths at the hands of the police are cases of self defence by the police concerned?

This seems to be a pretty broad brush approach, especially as you have presented no evidence to show that any of the cases under discussion, let alone all or the vast majority of cases are explicable by police acting in self defence.

ETA: I find it rather disturbing that you don't find these apparently high levels of police killing unarmed people troubling, or even worth mentioning. To me that's a bit like saying that these deaths are of no consequence, that they are not even a cause for concern.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Police across the United States shot and killed an average of one unarmed person every three days during the first five months of this year, according to an investigation by The Washington Post.

The average was based on the fact that 49 people who were not carrying a weapon of any kind were shot to death during the first 151 days of 2015.

Among these victims, two-thirds were black or Hispanic.

In addition to the 49 unarmed individuals, another 13 carrying toy guns were shot to death by law enforcement.

The Post investigation also found that at least 385 people—whether armed or unarmed—were shot and killed by police nationwide during the first five months of this year, an average of more than two a day. “That is more than twice the rate of fatal police shootings tallied by the federal government over the past decade, a count that officials concede is incomplete,” Kimberly Kindy wrote for the Post article, which had five additional reporters contributing to the story.

Jim Bueermann, a former police chief and president of the Police Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving law enforcement, told the Post such “shootings are grossly under­reported.”

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/police-shoot-to-death-one-unarmed-person-every-3-days-in-us-150602?news=856625


Thankfully we have constitutional protections eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


~ FR ~

I have no fundamental objection to shooting a person who poses a threat, regardless of whether or not he's armed. But speaking as someone who respects firearms and skill in their use, I find myself disgusted when cops, sometimes multiple officers at once, blast away like maniacs at center of mass, killing an individual who could have been taken off his feet with a leg shot.

Firing at center of mass is only recommended because the torso presents a large target, i.e., because you're less likely to miss, not because it is effective. A perpetrator, particularly one who is cranked up on drugs, can take multiple center of mass hits and keep on coming, partly because the effects of internal organ damage and bleeding are not instantaneous, and partly because you haven't impaired his mobility.

Where to shoot depends on circumstances and distance, but most of these incidents occur at ranges where a competent shooter has choices. Keystone Cops are funny in the movies, but not so much otherwise.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

This website contains details of 483 incidents of people killed by the US police this year. Each listing carries a link to media reports of the incident.

Scrolling down the list, this case caught my eye:
"A mentally ill woman who died after a stun gun was used on her at the Fairfax County jail in February was restrained with handcuffs behind her back, leg shackles and a mask when a sheriff’s deputy shocked her four times, incident reports obtained by The Washington Post show.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fairfax-jail-inmate-who-died-was-fully-restrained-when-tasered-four-times/2015/04/11/ede0957c-decd-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html
It seems to me it's rather difficult to create a credible case of self defence in this particular incident.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


~ FR ~

I have no fundamental objection to shooting a person who poses a threat, regardless of whether or not he's armed. But speaking as someone who respects firearms and skill in their use, I find myself disgusted when cops, sometimes multiple officers at once, blast away like maniacs at center of mass, killing an individual who could have been taken off his feet with a leg shot.

Firing at center of mass is only recommended because the torso presents a large target, i.e., because you're less likely to miss, not because it is effective. A perpetrator, particularly one who is cranked up on drugs, can take multiple center of mass hits and keep on coming, partly because the effects of internal organ damage and bleeding are not instantaneous, and partly because you haven't impaired his mobility.

Where to shoot depends on circumstances and distance, but most of these incidents occur at ranges where a competent shooter has choices. Keystone Cops are funny in the movies, but not so much otherwise.

K.

Do you suppose that cops should shoot for the gun hand when the person is armed, just like Marshall Dillon?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Paladin sometimes shot for the hand. He was a stud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Police and you may use a gun to protect yourself even though the person endangering you does not. This is not a situation where you must meet force with equal force but instead you may use overwhelming force to protect yourself from force.

Constitutional protections do apply to police and do not prevent them from using a gun to protect themselves even if the person assaulting them does not. I'm sure this has been an eye opener to you now based upon your OP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Police across the United States shot and killed an average of one unarmed person every three days during the first five months of this year, according to an investigation by The Washington Post.
-snip-

How is unarmed defined? I have seen numerous cases on these threads alone, where a person trying to run officers down with their automobiles as unarmed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Police across the United States shot and killed an average of one unarmed person every three days during the first five months of this year, according to an investigation by The Washington Post.
-snip-

How is unarmed defined? I have seen numerous cases on these threads alone, where a person trying to run officers down with their automobiles as unarmed.

that is a mischaracterization.

They do not intend to run the officer down. That is part of the constructive fraud being used against citizens to murder them in cold blood for opposing the state.

When a police officer throws himself in front of a car daring someone who is merely trying to escape or ellude capture murdering them under that pretext and claiming that person was attempting to kill them is 'constructive fraud'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

This website contains details of 483 incidents of people killed by the US police this year. Each listing carries a link to media reports of the incident.

Scrolling down the list, this case caught my eye:
"A mentally ill woman who died after a stun gun was used on her at the Fairfax County jail in February was restrained with handcuffs behind her back, leg shackles and a mask when a sheriff’s deputy shocked her four times, incident reports obtained by The Washington Post show.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fairfax-jail-inmate-who-died-was-fully-restrained-when-tasered-four-times/2015/04/11/ede0957c-decd-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html
It seems to me it's rather difficult to create a credible case of self defence in this particular incident.

Going down the list, this one caught my eye. Ninja Warrior?

http://www.kpho.com/story/29033947/man-dead-after-officer-involved-shooting-in-kearny

How DARE these police officers save a child and two adult females? They STILL killed somebody...

http://www.keprtv.com/SWAT-on-scene-of-standoff-in-Kennewick-302418671.html?mobile=y

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


~ FR ~

I have no fundamental objection to shooting a person who poses a threat, regardless of whether or not he's armed. But speaking as someone who respects firearms and skill in their use, I find myself disgusted when cops, sometimes multiple officers at once, blast away like maniacs at center of mass, killing an individual who could have been taken off his feet with a leg shot.

Firing at center of mass is only recommended because the torso presents a large target, i.e., because you're less likely to miss, not because it is effective. A perpetrator, particularly one who is cranked up on drugs, can take multiple center of mass hits and keep on coming, partly because the effects of internal organ damage and bleeding are not instantaneous, and partly because you haven't impaired his mobility.

Where to shoot depends on circumstances and distance, but most of these incidents occur at ranges where a competent shooter has choices. Keystone Cops are funny in the movies, but not so much otherwise.

K.