Take a look at the Facts behind officer-involved shootings.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xexk9K6CCI[/media]
Thank you for posting this, good video. I've tried explaining this various times in other threads.
Check the OP's facebook. :v:
[QUOTE=BigOwl;35843427]Check the OP's facebook. :v:[/QUOTE]
'In-Training'
[QUOTE=areolop;35843431]'In-Training'[/QUOTE]
love it. just thought it was funny
Well I worked in Law enforcement, I'm still active in the Law Enforcement Community and actually plan on joining a local PD once a spot opens next year.
Looks like he is a part of some type of explorers program (or actually in a police academy, i dunno), that is a big deal imo and programs like that are a wealth of knowledge. I'm in a citizens academy atm and they're fantastic classes to take and can be put on a resume and job application.
Call it funny or whatever, but imo he really is taking that extra step in becoming a above average officer. He will really have a better grasp as to what is going on in a real PD before he even hits an academy. Plus repetition is a good thing, I got to transfer what I learned in the sheriff's office to the local PD class I take and i really got a better grasp of certain concepts then my other classmates.
[QUOTE=MR-X;35843614]Well I worked in Law enforcement, I'm still active in the Law Enforcement Community and actually plan on joining a local PD once a spot opens next year.
Looks like he is a part of some type of explorers program (or actually in a police academy, i dunno), that is a big deal imo and programs like that are a wealth of knowledge. I'm in a citizens academy atm and they're fantastic classes to take and can be put on a resume and job application.
Call it funny or whatever, but imo he really is taking that extra step in becoming a above average officer. He will really have a better grasp as to what is going on in a real PD before he even hits an academy. Plus repetition is a good thing, I got to transfer what I learned in the sheriff's office to the local PD class I take and i really got a better grasp of certain concepts then my other classmates.[/QUOTE]
Well. you nailed it. Im explorer at my local PD -- Been one for four years now. Im pretty much just waiting till I get my diploma to start working somewhere.
Oh the "shooting in the back" thing, the motherfucker might as well have said the suspect started doing a cartwheel during that 0.3 seconds.
I like how it's completely implausible for a police officer to NOT shoot someone in a small fraction of a second, but it makes perfect sense for a suspect to undergo some unnecessarily convoluted maneuver to rationalize a bullet impacting with their back. It's not enough time for an officer to not pull a trigger, but it's just enough time for a suspect to do what appeared to be some manner of somersault for some reason he never said why. I'd like to have heard what kind of forensic evidence he had to back that up. Unfortunately, he didn't fucking mention any, apparently expecting me to take his word at it. The angle and trajectory of the impact alone could determine whether he was truly shot from the back or from "above" (e.g. hunched over like that.) But he didn't mention that.
When it comes to anecdotes, Occam's razor dictates.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35843704]Oh the "shooting in the back" thing, the motherfucker might as well have said the suspect started doing a cartwheel during that 0.3 seconds.
I like how it's completely implausible for a police officer to NOT shoot someone in a small fraction of a second, but it makes perfect sense for a suspect to undergo some unnecessarily convoluted maneuver to rationalize a bullet impacting with their back. It's not enough time for an officer to not pull a trigger, but it's just enough time for a suspect to do what appeared to be some manner of somersault for some reason he never said why.
Occam's razor dictates.[/QUOTE]
choo choo here comes the flame train fueled by nothing but lankist's gigantic ego and personal opinions let's see who reacts to him and starts a 10 page bitch fest this time
[QUOTE=Bound;35843724]choo choo here comes the flame train fueled by nothing but lankist's gigantic ego and personal opinions let's see who reacts to him and starts a 10 page bitch fest this time[/QUOTE]
when did I personally attack anyone?
[QUOTE=Bound;35843724]choo choo here comes the flame train fueled by nothing but lankist's gigantic ego and personal opinions let's see who reacts to him and starts a 10 page bitch fest this time[/QUOTE]
chugachugachugachuga choo chooooo
Lots of dumb ratings and snark.
No actual responses.
If you prefer to maintain a circle-jerk, just say so. I was under the impression that a discussion forum implied discussion.
How come every thread you post in, you start an argument?
[editline]5th May 2012[/editline]
* unintentionally
[QUOTE=Lankist;35843704]Oh the "shooting in the back" thing, the motherfucker might as well have said the suspect started doing a cartwheel during that 0.3 seconds.
I like how it's completely implausible for a police officer to NOT shoot someone in a small fraction of a second, but it makes perfect sense for a suspect to undergo some unnecessarily convoluted maneuver to rationalize a bullet impacting with their back. It's not enough time for an officer to not pull a trigger, but it's just enough time for a suspect to do what appeared to be some manner of somersault for some reason he never said why. I'd like to have heard what kind of forensic evidence he had to back that up. Unfortunately, he didn't fucking mention any, apparently expecting me to take his word at it. The angle and trajectory of the impact alone could determine whether he was truly shot from the back or from "above" (e.g. hunched over like that.) But he didn't mention that.
When it comes to anecdotes, Occam's razor dictates.[/QUOTE]
This is not an argument.
This is a commentary on a single claim's veracity, and its lack of proper evidence.
The mere fact that someone on youtube who happens to be wearing a suit says something does not invalidate the necessity for proper explanation. I am not implying he is wrong. I am implying he has done very little do demonstrate the validity of his claim.
For a video seemingly aimed at police, it's doing a very poor job at speaking to them as qualified and intelligent individuals. This particular explanation opens many, many questions, which are left unaddressed.
Why would an assailant swing a weapon [I]in front[/I] of the officer? Does he not have depth perception? Wouldn't he be swinging the weapon *at* the officer, and not some distance in *front* of the officer? Exposing one's back is not a conventional defensive posture.
How is the motion of swinging the weapon faster than the firing of a gun between shot #3 and shot #4?
Why is this particular officer trained to shoot four consecutive times without verifying whether the threat has been dealt with?
Also, where is the forensic analysis of the impact angle of the bullet in question? If someone were hunched over in a swinging posture, then the impact of the bullet would reflect that in the angle it enters and travels through the assailant's body. It would be traveling in a downward motion through the shoulder/upper back toward the lower back. If the bullet's trajectory goes from back-to-front in relation to the body, then it could not have been at the angle this man claims.
And here we go again
This is exactly what I was talking about
[QUOTE=Lankist;35843923]Lots of dumb ratings and snark.
No actual responses.
If you prefer to maintain a circle-jerk, just say so. I was under the impression that a discussion forum implied discussion.[/QUOTE]Not after the rating system was introduced, only place left for proper discussion these days is Mass Debate
[QUOTE=areolop;35844069]This is exactly what I was talking about[/QUOTE]
If you don't want someone to discuss something in your thread, don't make a fucking thread.
You make a thread about police myths. God forbid someone talks about them.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35843969]This is not an argument.
This is a commentary on a single claim's veracity, and its lack of proper evidence.
The mere fact that someone on youtube who happens to be wearing a suit says something does not invalidate the necessity for proper explanation. I am not implying he is wrong. I am implying he has done very little do demonstrate the validity of his claim.
For a video seemingly aimed at police, it's doing a very poor job at speaking to them as qualified and intelligent individuals. This particular explanation opens many, many questions, which are left unaddressed.
Why would an assailant swing a weapon [I]in front[/I] of the officer? Does he not have depth perception? Wouldn't he be swinging the weapon *at* the officer, and not some distance in *front* of the officer? Exposing one's back is not a conventional defensive posture.
How is the motion of swinging the weapon faster than the firing of a gun between shot #3 and shot #4?
Why is this particular officer trained to shoot four consecutive times without verifying whether the threat has been dealt with?
Also, where is the forensic analysis of the impact angle of the bullet in question? If someone were hunched over in a swinging posture, then the impact of the bullet would reflect that in the angle it enters and travels through the assailant's body. It would be traveling in a downward motion through the shoulder/upper back toward the lower back. If the bullet's trajectory goes from back-to-front in relation to the body, then it could not have been at the angle this man claims.[/QUOTE]
Look if you watch the video again, that guy that's in that little suit is actually a professional and has been doing his job for years and he's formed his facts around experience from investigating these shootings. You just formed your whole entire opinion over what-if statements and pretty much stating that the video gives police a bad view. Yeah it sure did. Man, police aren't like those police in movies. They actually completely terrible in real life. The guy in the freakin' suit explained it. Especially the lady explaining the reaction and why things happen the way they happen. Even if you didn't think that was enough look it up on the internet. And really? Why would someone swing his weapon in front an officer? Like a knife? Because stabbing is the quickest knife attack where pointing a gun up and aiming to not kill the person is much much harder. You think about bullet trajectories, but not how a knife is more dangerous. You even freakin' questioned their made up event about the officer shooting 4 times. It's like asking why did the chicken cross the road. BECAUSE HE FREAKIN' DID. ONCE AGAIN MADE UP EVENT PUT TOGETHER DUE TO AVERAGE ANALYTIC EVENTS OCCURRING IN THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION. Really man. You can't be serious about this. I guess next time I try to show someone an example of someone getting shot I better just download JFK Assassination simulator and show the bullet trajectory through there because using my hand isn't perfect enough for some people.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35843923]Lots of dumb ratings and snark.
No actual responses.
If you prefer to maintain a circle-jerk, just say so. I was under the impression that a discussion forum implied discussion.[/QUOTE]
It's more that no one wants to bother arguing with someone that can't even comprehend basic physics.
[QUOTE=Thlis;35844877]It's more that no one wants to bother arguing with someone that can't even comprehend basic physics.[/QUOTE]
Feel free to explain.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35844887]Feel free to explain.[/QUOTE]
Nice trick, Lankist, but I see through you're clever disguise!
Please, just stop trying to incite an arguement in every thread...
Please?
ignoring choco's post, classy lol
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;35844933]ignoring choco's post, classy lol[/QUOTE]
Choco's post made no goddamn sense and amounted to "WHAT DO YOU KNOW!?" and flagrant appeal-to-authority fallacies, so in lieu of insulting him I opted to set it aside.
There is very little there for me to respond to.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35843969]This is not an argument.
This is a commentary on a single claim's veracity, and its lack of proper evidence.
[/QUOTE]
I am more inclined to believe this video rather than your post which pretty much consists of armchair police officer.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35843969]
For a video seemingly aimed at police, it's doing a very poor job at speaking to them as qualified and intelligent individuals. This particular explanation opens many, many questions, which are left unaddressed.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty clearly meant for the general public.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35843969]
Why would an assailant swing a weapon [I]in front[/I] of the officer? Does he not have depth perception? Wouldn't he be swinging the weapon *at* the officer, and not some distance in *front* of the officer? Exposing one's back is not a conventional defensive posture.
How is the motion of swinging the weapon faster than the firing of a gun between shot #3 and shot #4?[/QUOTE]
I don't even understand what point you are trying to make here and I am not entirely sure if you do yourself.
Lankist has found a very intelligent way of saying 'fuck the police'. Or maybe not so much.
[QUOTE=Thlis;35844963]I don't even understand what point you are trying to make here and I am not entirely sure if you do yourself.[/QUOTE]
If you are swinging, say, a knife at a person, by the time you enter the swinging-motion demonstrated by Captain Suit in this video, you will be beyond the officer's line of fire and directly up against him. Unless the officer managed to shoot the man in the back point-blank while simultaneously dodging the weapon, the assailant would have needed to enter the demonstrated posture at some distance from the officer other than point-blank. The posture that man demonstrated was an attacking posture, and an assailant would not be in an attacking posture until he is within attacking distance (which, in this case, is point-blank, and beyond typical shooting-distance).
Let's say you're pointing a gun at me, and I'm bum-rushing you. Do you expect me to throw a punch when I'm ten feet away, or when I'm right up in your face? Additionally, if I [I]am[/I] right up in your grill, how are you going to shoot me by that point, let alone shoot me in the [I]back[/I] while still avoiding whatever weapon I'm swinging at you.
And you said physics. This isn't physics, this is forensics. What physics have I gotten wrong?
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845015]The posture that man demonstrated was an attacking posture, [/QUOTE]
No, It was getting shot in the gut posture.
You don't understand the physics of how a person hits the ground.
Furthermore your entire speculation is again just that, armchair postulation with no backing.
[QUOTE=BigOwl;35844977]Lankist has found a very intelligent way of saying 'fuck the police'. Or maybe not so much.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying fuck the police, I'm questioning police procedure. That's sort of important in a free, non-authoritarian society. I don't see why there's such a stigma around questioning police.
[QUOTE=Thlis;35845063]No, It was getting shot in the gut posture.
You don't understand the physics of how a person hits the ground.[/QUOTE]
A person hits the ground by doing a somersault forward?
Because typically when someone is shot forward and starts to fall, they fall in a backward direction. They do not typically flip forward at such an angle that a direct shot to the back is possible. A graze is certainly possible, but not a direct shot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
