- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,775
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It seems that drawing his weapon and aiming can be seen as an example of both malice and forethought.
It seems that drawing his weapon and aiming can be seen as an example of both malice and forethought.
It seems that drawing his weapon and aiming can be seen as an example of both malice and forethought.
I'm not dramitizing it. HP's cause more damage than FMJ's. That's why there is an agreement not to use them in war, but we use them on our own civilians. Just pointing it out.
Politifact is biased? Where did you come up with that? They are probably the LEAST biased source out there. If you bothered to look at the link you would see that the claim you made, perpetuated by Bill O'Reilly and other right-wing radio propogandists, is technically correct. However, when you see that there are 5x as many whites in America as blacks you see that it is disproportionately blacks who are killed by police.
well no ****. But on the same thought, who disproportionately commits the crimes? you would have to factor all of that in to get an accurate idea to prove anything.
and **** politifact:
Study Finds Fact Checkers Biased Against Republicans - US News
PolitiFact Florida’s 5 Most Biased Rulings - Media Trackers
You would also have to figure out who is disproportionately in poverty, under-eductated, and come from broken homes.
HP would would stop the target faster. They also would reduce over penetration. We SHOULD allow them in war. Especially in places where targets won't have armor. FMJs will just go right through. HP rounds are the only logical defensive round. They reduce risk to bystanders.
HPs reduce the possibility of over-penetration, thereby reducing risk to bystanders.
New York City police officers fire their weapons far less often than they did a decade ago, a statistic that has dropped along with the crime rate. But when they do fire, even at an armed suspect, there is often no one returning fire at the officers. Officers hit their targets roughly 34 percent of the time.
I don't disagree. Plus there is a tone more things one would have to look at as well.
I also wonder if some cops have forms of PTSD.
No. Most cops don't ever draw their weapons, and it is a relatively safe job. #heroes
If sitting in a squad care getting fat causes PTSD.......
No. Most cops don't ever draw their weapons, and it is a relatively safe job. #heroes
If sitting in a squad care getting fat causes PTSD.......
US police are around 2000 times more likely to use lethal force against the public than those in other developed countries and are around 500 times more likely to be killed in the line of duty.
Whats wrong with this picture ?
What about all those times where people are trying making a Racial mountain out of a color blind mole hill.
well no ****. But on the same thought, who disproportionately commits the crimes? you would have to factor all of that in to get an accurate idea to prove anything.
and **** politifact:
Study Finds Fact Checkers Biased Against Republicans - US News
PolitiFact Florida’s 5 Most Biased Rulings - Media Trackers
Most deaths by american cops are from traffic accidents, by far.
I have several weapons and I'm familiar with the different properties of each, though I'm by no means an expert, I have shot 1000's or rounds from various weapons. I don't disagree with your assessment, but when it comes to police are HP's the best choice?
Let me offer a few counter-points...
So far as collateral damage, you make a point and with rifles this might be especially important, but what are the ballistics of a an FMJ 9mm round after traveling through a person? Frankly I'm not sure.
Furthermore, if we're really worried about collateral damage, let's look at the video in the OP. Would you agree, that generally speaking that the situation was about as good as a police officer can hope to get when shooting at a perp?
It's daytime.
It is extremely open.
There are no other people or loud noises to distract him.
His suspect has his back to him, thus he has no fear of being attacked.
The suspect is running, about the only thing that makes this shot more difficult.
He is standing firm
Takes his time and takes aim
He is 20ft away
The target is "running" away in a straight line.
Hopefully we can agree that as far as police shootings go, these are some of the best circumstances (from the persperspective of being able to hit your target) that a police officer can hope to get.
So if your argument is that HP's prevent collateral damage because they stop in the body, what about the 4 bullets that miss? Im calling the ear shot a "miss" from the perspective that the bullet would have had virtually all of it's lethal velocity after striking his ear.
So under some of the best conditions a police officer will face we have a 50% hit rate. Now we have 50% of the HP's flying around to hit collateral targets.
Look at the idiot who asked the guy for his licence then when he reaches in the car he takes 4 shots. There is a store and other cars behind him. He hit his target 1 time from 10ft.
South Carolina trooper shot unarmed man, police say - CNN.com
I suspect that if we were to look at the accuracy of police I'd be shocked, nationwide if it exceeded 40% [EDIT"] So below you can see I posed that in 11 years of study, NY city cops missed their targets (when not being fired upon) 66% of the time.
That said think of all the HP's that aren't stopped by a body left to fly until they hit a target.
So your response might be that HP's once they hit something, like drywall, or wood, or a car door will come to a stop faster, and that is an argument, but out in the open if they hit collateral targets they will do more damage to bystanders.
Perhaps the best argument is that the choice to shoot should be a last resort and the decision to shoot be taken more judiciously. Police work is dangerous work. I know. I went to school to be a cop and I went on ride alongs for two years. I saw first hand what it's like. Frankly I think the police have an almost impossible job (the reason I decided not to do it) and I'm willing to say that the blame doesn't rest entirely on the officers shoulders. Often they are asked to do to much with too little. The system as a whole is largely to blame. Training is inadequate and the suck it up, militaristic culture isn't what we want when dealing with the public on a day-to-day basis imo...
Ok, this turned into a much longer rant than I intended....:doh
He'll get his chance to make his case w/e it may be.What if he thought he was a danger because he was a black man running loose? :lol:
He'll get his chance to make his case w/e it may be.
LOL - A widely known right-wing opinion writer calling politifact biased.....shocked I tell you....shocked! Maybe Fox and the National review getting called out on their lies prompts his wrath?
US News is right wing?
I really don't care, you are free to live in delusion all you want. *shrug*
Pants On Fire: PolitiFact Tries To Hide That It Rated 'True' in 2008 Obamacare's 'Keep Your Health Plan' Promise - Forbes
But you keep livin the dream man. /facepalm
They are "more likely" to kill a bystander. That is your argument? Never mind that the risk will be greater with a perfect shot? That an fmj will go through more and create more bystanders? Even on the other side of a wall? Seriously?
The only logical round is HP. It stops. Maybe not fast, but faster than an fmj.
Your link was an op-ed piece written by Peter Roff - a well known right-wing opinion writer.