Video captures Michigan man's shooting by police

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

steves 50de
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 3515
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:26 pm
Location: n.e. ohio
Contact:

Re: Video captures Michigan man's shooting by police

Post by steves 50de »

carmen fovozzo wrote:No pun intended,but. When he's standing he is on his feet, when he is down he is laying on the ground......If you don't think a jury could figure that out and is still a threat, you have a problem....IMO
A person with an average IQ know's what we watched on the video was over the top and not how a professional police force should handle that situation. The poor mother of the guy should be payed i really feel bad for her she had to watch that crap. :twisted:
Black Rifles Matter
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: Video captures Michigan man's shooting by police

Post by WestonDon »

Vex wrote:
WestonDon wrote:What I am hearing on this thread is that the general consensus is that the shoot was justified but 46 rounds was to much.
Bingo. Once the bad guy is on the ground we reassess the situation, prepare to respond, and begin to plan the next action. In the video provided, the bad guy was on the ground after the first 3-4 shots. Through several studies, we have learned that police officers will fire 2-3 shots more than necessary to stop the threat, because the brain can not communicate fast enough to the trigger finger to stop shooting immediately.

In my professional opinion, whoever the ONE guy was who fired the last 8 shots (after everyone else stopped shooting) acted excessively out of bounds and should be fired. Furthermore, the bad guy went down after the first shot, right? If everyone's brain tells them to 'fire' and then tells them to 'stop' 0.6 seconds later (average STOP-GO-STOP reaction time for a trained police officer), this shooting would have ended with less than 24 shots fired, or three shots per officer.

First 24 shots are justified. Last 22 shots are excessive. The victim's family is gonna get paid on this one.
Vex. You seem to have a valid calculation for determining a threashold for reasonable force. In your opinion would the same calculation apply to an "average" non LEO CHL holder?

I notice you recommend that the one guy be fired. Do you think his actions would warrant criminal charges?
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
Vex
Posts: 2582
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:59 am
Location: Central Ohio

Re: Video captures Michigan man's shooting by police

Post by Vex »

WestonDon wrote: In your opinion would the same calculation apply to an "average" non LEO CHL holder?
To the average citizen with little to no special training, the threshold is higher. There is a trade off for training. If you train every week, you're held to a higher standard than someone who only makes it to the range for a CCW class and never shoots another round. Don't mistake this for a reason to not train, though. A trained individual has a higher survival chance, and that's whats important.
WestonDon wrote:I notice you recommend that the one guy be fired. Do you think his actions would warrant criminal charges?
When deadly force is justified, it can be dealt by any means necessary. If you have to drop a toilet on someone's head in the style of Boondock Saints, deadly force is deadly force regardless of where it came from. That being said, the answer is no, criminal charges are not warranted. Prove that one officer fired the only fatal shot. More importantly, prove one of the last 8 shots he fired was the fatal shot. The officer could be civilly liable for the excessive force used to subdue the suspect, but only because the burden of proof is much lower in a civil court than in a criminal court.

What should (and probably will) happen is the department accepts responsibility for their poorly trained officer, everyone is mandated to be retrained, and the insurance company (and tax payers) shell out a pile of cash to the family.

Does anyone know how many rounds hit the suspect?
  • “You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word.” - Al Capone
  • “Victorious warriors win first, then go to war; defeated warriors go to war first, then seek to win.” - Sun-Tzu
Post Reply