- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
They found him. We all know what happened after that.
Yes we do. Lon Horiuchi should NOT be breathing our air
They found him. We all know what happened after that.
Watching the remainder of the video, the officer says "he wouldn't drop the gun", then says "he brought it out of his jacket". You can't have it both ways.
I think this will probably be found to be a legal shoot.
I don't think it was a good one.
I realize there may be situations where a person is hearing impaired, but if an officer is pointing a gun at me and yelling, I will at the least get my hands up. Why this guy did not speak to the officers or show some cooperation is a mystery to me. I know little about the whole situation, but it did seem the officer was perhaps too trigger-happy and could have waited longer to see the intent of the deceased. Tough situation for the officer, that is for sure.
Watching the remainder of the video, the officer says "he wouldn't drop the gun", then says "he brought it out of his jacket". You can't have it both ways.
I think this will probably be found to be a legal shoot.
I don't think it was a good one.
Now I will say that bad tactics lead to good shootings. Not sure if that applies in this situation but I see it ALL THE TIME in other police action shootings. As a profession it is hard to break the mindset that we only need to concern ourselves that the shooting was legal and that we not need to strive for "best practices" in learning better tactics (on our own time and dime I'm afraid) that could reduce the number of PAS. But many officers only care if the PAS was justified or not. Researching this stuff I came across the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" which is basically a cognitive bias in which a person fails to see their own deficiencies or gaps in knowledge. As a result, they can overestimate their abilities and competence. I suffer from it, working on it though, we all suffer from it. They wrote “Poor performers—and we are all poor performers at some things—fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack. When we think we are at our best is sometimes when we are at our objective worst.” Getting off my soapbox now...
How can he drop a gun he is not holding? Trying to get the gun to drop it is what got him shot.How do these two statements conflict meaningfully?
Excellent post. At the root of things, we are all just human. We all have flaws.Now I will say that bad tactics lead to good shootings. Not sure if that applies in this situation but I see it ALL THE TIME in other police action shootings. As a profession it is hard to break the mindset that we only need to concern ourselves that the shooting was legal and that we not need to strive for "best practices" in learning better tactics (on our own time and dime I'm afraid) that could reduce the number of PAS. But many officers only care if the PAS was justified or not. Researching this stuff I came across the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" which is basically a cognitive bias in which a person fails to see their own deficiencies or gaps in knowledge. As a result, they can overestimate their abilities and competence. I suffer from it, working on it though, we all suffer from it. They wrote “Poor performers—and we are all poor performers at some things—fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack. When we think we are at our best is sometimes when we are at our objective worst.” Getting off my soapbox now...
How can he drop a gun he is not holding? Trying to get the gun to drop it is what got him shot.
Reply to Denny 347
Thanks for writing that. I understand 'action beats reaction,' but it seems hard to think reaction cannot pull a trigger faster than action can raise a gun from below waist high. I cannot argue with your experience, but why do you think that is the case? Normal reluctance to shoot someone?
I agree with the idea that you should point your gun low enough to be able to see the hands of the BG; tunnel vision under stress means you will easily miss anything outside of your main area of focus.
I think the Charlotte officer acted lawfully, but it did seem to me to be a bad shoot. What do you think?
Perception time + Processing time + Reaction time
The good guy has to perceive the gun is being raised, process that perception and choose a response, then execute the response. While that happens quickly, the bad guy has an insurmountable head start since all he has to do is execute the response, ie. raise and fire.
There is merit to Denny and your post. Not every good guy will loose in this scenario. Most will of course but reaction times will vary among folks.
15yrs ago or so, I had a situation in Irvington
snip
Wheeew, that was a bit long winded.
Yes, that group of people is known as "criminals".
Do tell: would either officer have been at that Burger King if Franklin had not been committing the acts that led to multiple 911 calls and a police dispatch for assault with a deadly weapon?
First sentence is pure unadulterated BS, and you should be ashamed of it. All people who are profiled are all "criminals"? Ridiculous.
You're citing a situation where the police had reason to suspect that individual, and they acted accordingly. Are your reasoning skills so poor that you can't tell the difference?
Indeed. The AVERAGE bad guy can raise and fire their handgun in .35-.4 seconds. The average police officer will take about .3 seconds to perceive the threat and decide action. They will also take about the same to put decision to action .6 seconds. Check out Force Science Institute as they do these studies and experiments. forcescience.orgThere is merit to Denny and your post. Not every good guy will loose in this scenario. Most will of course but reaction times will vary among folks.
If you don't see a gun, why tell him to drop it? Maybe if the officers had told him to show them his hands, he would have. Maybe then he wouldn't have had the gun in his hand, and she would not have panicked and shot him.Not necessarily accurate. The gun could have been in his hand and also in his pocket (i.e. he could have been holding it in his hand, with his hand in his pocket).
In his crouched position, that determination would have been rather difficult - and compounded by the time he spent not communicating or otherwise acting in a manner that demonstrated intent to comply.
If the gun had been in his pocket while his hand was not also in his pocket, showing the officers his open hands would have immediately demonstrated that he wasn't holding the firearm.
If you don't see a gun, why tell him to drop it? Maybe if the officers had told him to show them his hands, he would have. Maybe then he wouldn't have had the gun in his hand, and she would not have panicked and shot him.
You seem to want to defend their actions to the bitter end. The officers did not appear to handle this well.
How have I condemned her? Because I think she did not handle that interaction well? I'm not calling for her to be jailed. The system will determine if what she did was legal and just.And you have condemned them to the end. Time will tell who is right I suppose. I think Chip is being more pragmatist than defender but many see that as the same thing.