|
Post by lazarus on Jan 19, 2010 19:23:40 GMT -5
Please feel free to repost, Laz, when you can link what you post to the originating source. Maybe you have not heard that is a requirement here? ~ Beth
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 19, 2010 19:41:58 GMT -5
That happened a couple of years ago. I didn't think he was an illegal alien, and I doubt the story about the coroner.
The Sheriff's answer is genuine- that really came out of his mouth. But he follows it with "We weren't taking any chances." The true answer is that about a dozen officers found him hiding in the woods. When they pulled (I think it was a tarp or sheet of plywood) off the suspect, he made a furtive move. Knowing he had a propensity for shooting at officers, and that he had been armed, they started shooting. Let's say ten officers, that's 6.8 rounds a piece, at least some of them were SWAT officers, armed with sub machine guns, they probably shot at him a second or two, then he went down and the threat was neutralized.
In any case, I don't feel sorry for him. He killed a father of three over an arrest warrant that was expired anyway. And he didn't shoot him just to get away- he shot Deputy Williams in the spine, then walked up to him and finished him off.
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Jan 19, 2010 19:43:52 GMT -5
Laz, I am delighted you are happy with your country. Please though, do not step outside you self imposed ghetto lest we in the more civilised world feel a need to defend OUR borders with 68 bullets. Make no mistake though, If threatened with this level of moral imbecility we WOULD man the frontier.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Jan 20, 2010 11:38:02 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angilo_FreelandAngilo Freeland (1979 – 29 September 2006) was a Antiguan national who was pulled over for speeding in Lakeland, Florida by Polk County Sheriff's Deputy Doug Speirs around noon on September 28, 2006. After giving the officer a fake ID, and the officer called for backup, Freeland (who was armed with a handgun) ran into the woods and hid. A K9 unit responded and the two officers and the dog began searching for Freeland. Freeland shot K9 officer Deputy Vernon "Matt'" William 9 times, including 1 close-range shot into the officer's head and a second shot into the offier's head with the muzzle of the pistol pressed against the victim's skull. Freeland also killed the dog, and then shot Deputy Speirs in the leg when he came to assist his fellow-officer. Freeland took the dead officer's weapon and ammunition and hid in the woods again.[1] [2] Deputy Speirs notified his dispatcher of the situation and authorities mounted a massive manhunt, including 500 officers, every available police dog, a SWAT tank and a helicopter. Law enforcement officers searched the woods for Freeland, who came out of the woods once to shoot at the searchers. He was finally cornered by 10 SWAT officers the next day. The SWAT team members say that when Freeland pointed his gun at them, they opened fire, shooting Freeland 68 times out of their 110 rounds fired. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd later told reporters that Freeland was shot 68 times because: “I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that’s all the ammunition they had.[1] Freeland's family called on Florida Governor Jeb Bush to appoint an independent, unbiased investigator, because they claimed that the Polk County Sheriff's Office, which reviewed the shooting by an internal investigation, was biased due to the death of Deputy Williams. They argued, based on the number of shots fired and Deputy Judd's remarks, that the police used too much force and that they should have made more of an effort to take Angilo alive. Joyce Freeland, Angilo's mother stated that "All we want is for all questions surrounding why this happened to be answered." In response, Assistant State Attorney Chip Thullbery stated that "I think their concerns are misplaced. I believe that there will be a thorough investigation of all the incidents and that our office will do a thorough, independent and impartial review of that investigation."[3] His family claimed Angilo was not involved in any illicit activity. However, his home was the subject of an ongoing drugs and weapons investigation at the time of the shooting. When authorities searched his house, they recovered several firearms including an AK-47 assault rifle, an SKS assault rifle and a .380-caliber handgun. Police also uncovered a journal in when Freeland wrote about going out "in a moment of Bezerk madness, forcing the enemy to play the end game before it is time."[4] In December 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) asked the FBI to review the shooting of Freeland after the department received a letter from the Florida Civil Rights Association, which called Freeland's shooting "profoundly disturbing." The FBI subsequently announced they would investigate whether authorities used excessive force in the incident. In June 2008, the DoJ announced it had cleared the Polk County Sheriff's Office of any wrongdoing in the incident, stating: "After careful consideration, we concluded that the evidence does not establish a prosecutable violation of the federal civil rights statutes. Accordingly, we have closed our investigation."[5] In a news story dated June 14, 2007, Gabrielle Finley of TheLedger.com wrote: The Polk County Sheriff’s Office said today that area law enforcement agencies have arrested 19 people in Orange and Hernando counties who were connected with Angilo Freeland in a street-level drug trafficking operation. Freeland is the man deputies say shot and killed Deputy Matt Williams and his K-9 Diogi last September following a traffic stop. In a press conference today, Polk Sheriff Grady Judd said Freeland served as an assassin in the drug operation. Officials suspect him of killing up to 15 people in Latin America for not paying their drug debts. They are unsure if he killed anyone in Florida, but are still investigating that angle. Freeland was “pure evil in the flesh,” Judd said."[6]
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Jan 20, 2010 12:03:12 GMT -5
The SWAT team members say that when Freeland pointed his gun at them, they opened fire, shooting Freeland 68 times out of their 110 rounds fired.
Under 62% accuracy. How typical to be bragging about incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 20, 2010 13:23:29 GMT -5
Well it's one thing to do that at a range, slow fire, and it's another with stress and sub machine guns.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 20, 2010 14:36:46 GMT -5
I think 110 shots might have been excessive.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 20, 2010 14:48:25 GMT -5
I don't think they were counting the shots. What do you think is excessive? Firing for a half second? One second? Two seconds? Just long enough that the guy was no longer a threat?
Would you rather there were fewer officers? That they hesitated?
I would imagine these guys took a couple of quick bursts and the entire shooting was over in a couple of seconds.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 20, 2010 15:00:06 GMT -5
Assuming each gun fires 10 rounds per second, it'd take 11 guys firing at exactly the same instant for a single twitch of the finger from all of them to have resulted in that many shots.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 20, 2010 15:35:57 GMT -5
Yeah, that's probably about right.
I would imagine they were all shooting at the same time, or most of them. None of them are trained to hesitate. So there's the two to three seconds the suspect took to react to being shot, the time the SWAT officers take to react to his reaction, there's a five second or so incident, a second of two of shooting, then the whole thing's over.
That is the whole thing's over except for the years that people like you, me, the public, and the DOJ to sit in our armchairs and second guess a decision that officers had to make in a fraction of a second with their lives at stake.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Jan 21, 2010 2:50:26 GMT -5
Well I'm convinced. Blow him away.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 21, 2010 7:10:19 GMT -5
I'm just thinking Wayne that human reaction time being what it is, the last guy probably started firing no less than 2 to 3 seconds after the first guy started firing. Given the speed of sound, he would have known they'd started firing 2 to 3 seconds before he started firing. He knew the weapons and the distance to target and so knew instinctively that by the time he would have even STARTED firing his weapon at this point, the bullets from the first guys would have already reached the target, which would be a presumption that would have been borne out by actually seeing the target well into being turned into hamburger by being hit with the 10 to 40 bullets from the first guys. So, it just seems to me, that the last guy, having seen and heard the target already well into being turned into hamburger, might have reasonably concluded that he could save his bullets.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not recommending disciplinary action for these guys. It IS a stress situation and they had to think fast. One could probably not expect any better from them -- they are human, even though they've certainly received training to use exactly the amount of force required, no more and no less, DESPITE it being a stress situation. Remember, it's BECAUSE of that training, AND knowing that even WELL-TRAINED guys with SPECIFIC and COMPREHENSIVE training in how to react in STRESS situations ARE human AND for that matter STILL will only actually hit their target at best 62% of the time AND will STILL use more bullets than were necessary, that I would a hundred times rather have THESE guys on a plane with their guns than some idiot with NO training whatsoever aside from a basic firearm safety course.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 21, 2010 8:03:19 GMT -5
"Well I'm convinced. Blow him away. "
They didn't shoot him because he was a suspect, they shot him because there was an immediate threat that he would kill an officer.
"I'm just thinking Wayne that human reaction time being what it is, the last guy probably started firing no less than 2 to 3 seconds after the first guy started firing. Given the speed of sound, he would have known they'd started firing 2 to 3 seconds before he started firing."
If they responded according to their training, they started shooting almost simultaneously. They each are trained to react to the threat. I don't think that anyone would have had an issue with a single officer firing eleven rounds. It just happened that there were ten officers. So the idea that the stress got the better of them is incorrect. They did exactly what they were trained to do.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 21, 2010 8:14:22 GMT -5
"Almost simultaneously" given the 11 guys from our assumption and given the natural difference in reaction times, etc., the last guy must have started shooting NO LESS THAN 2-3 seconds after the first guy started shooting.
Again, not saying they weren't trained to do that. I will say if I recommend anything it is to train them that it's ok not to shoot if they can tell the guy's already been shot 20 times even if it just occurred a split second ago. Not faulting them at all. Again, these are the kind of guys I'd want on that plane -- and I still do -- and I have no reservations about that.
I totally agree with you that EVEN WITH these extremely well-trained guys with SPECIFIC training in dealing with stress situations, "it's one thing to do that at a range, slow fire, and it's another with stress and sub machine guns." (In other words, you made a clear statement that their being human and it being a stress situation was a factor in what happened, entirely aside from their training.) I will remind you that I agree with you on this point in every discussion where it applies.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 21, 2010 9:02:21 GMT -5
Though there IS this:
“I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that’s all the ammunition they had." (Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd)
I have to say I WOULD question training that involved all the cops in a team completely emptying their entire magazines in a single burst. That's a safety issue for a number of reasons. You don't agree?
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 21, 2010 9:59:54 GMT -5
Reply #14:
SWAT doesn't go around with pistols with ten round mags.
You do understand that a Sheriff is an elected official, right? He's a politician. A good politician will say whatever he is necessary to get himself in the news.
Reply #13:
Where I disagree with you is your idea that the officers are conscious of the number of rounds that the other officers are firing. They don't have time to process that kind of information, they don't have time to determine where the sound of gunshots are coming from. At that point they have tunnel vision and focus on the threat.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 21, 2010 11:13:30 GMT -5
First point -- sounds like you're stretching on that one, but I won't pursue it.
Second point -- Ok, so maybe they "didn't know where the shots were coming from," so that refutes my "hearing" argument. That still leaves that by the time the last swat guy started shooting, it will have become obvious the target wasn't a threat anymore. The only way to avoid that is to assume that every single SWAT guy began firing within about a second of each other. As the number of cops goes up, the probability of that being true goes down; on the other hand, as the number of cops goes down, the number of shots fired per cop goes up, increasing the probability that at least one of them used excessive force. Pick your poison. Either you're arguing a statistically improbable position, or at least one of the cops used excessive force.
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Jan 21, 2010 11:58:57 GMT -5
I don't think that anyone would have had an issue with a single officer firing eleven rounds. Actually, I do - I object to police even having guns, never mind using them. And so the most of the police officers here.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 21, 2010 12:45:30 GMT -5
"I don't think that anyone would have had an issue with a single officer firing eleven rounds"
I would have if it was from a pistol and 62% of them hit. After the first one the cop would know he can start to ease up.
And this is from a trained guy "under stress" firing 11 bullets and only 7 of them hitting -- you're fronting him the other 4. Another good reason I don't want an UNtrained guy, under stress, with a gun, firing in an enclosed area -- when four bullets out of eleven going just anywhere is simply par for the course. I can only imagine that you'd consider a 25% hit ratio from an UNtrained guy under stress about par for the course, too, because, after all, he hasn't been trained to fire rapidly under stress, how can you expect him to do as well as a cop? So that'd be about eight bullets just going anywhere that you'd front to the guy.
From a machine gun, no.
From 10 guys with machine guns firing 110 rounds in all, see prior discussion.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 21, 2010 14:10:12 GMT -5
"First point -- sounds like you're stretching on that one, but I won't pursue it."
If you won't pursue it, then why bring it up? Either support or retract it. SWAT is trained to bring in long guns and automatics. Heck even most pistols hold over ten rounds; a 9mm Glock holds 18 rounds, topped off. Even if a few of the guys had shotguns with 6-8 rounds each, ten officers have more than 100 rounds, and that isn't counting reloads, or sidearms. The "we ran out of ammo" is a glib joke at best.
"The only way to avoid that is to assume that every single SWAT guy began firing within about a second of each other. "
If they were alert, this is possible. Especially once the first one starts shooting.
"Actually, I do - I object to police even having guns, never mind using them. And so the most of the police officers here. "
What do you suppose British officers would do in such a situation?
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Jan 21, 2010 14:23:06 GMT -5
Get it right, folks - shooting folks works, and shooting them more works even better. But it seems that no matter what the question is, therer are far too many out there who think shooting is the answer.
You know, I do not know if this was an overreaction or not, but I lean toward the possibility it was by the statements like they stopped shooting because they ran out of bullets (or something like that).
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Jan 21, 2010 14:30:03 GMT -5
Well it's one thing to do that at a range, slow fire, and it's another with stress and sub machine guns. Know what they say in the Canadian military? The safest place to be is where the Yanks are aiming.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 21, 2010 14:30:32 GMT -5
First point: I get to call shenanigans AND decide it isn't worth pursuing, don't I? I called shenanigans on your first point regarding oh, he's a politician, he's going to say whatever just so he gets on TV. Come on. YOU wouldn't have accepted that one from ME. Your NEW reason is much better. Chill out.
Second point: "Especially once the first one starts shooting." That actually goes to MY point about reaction time, AND it brings hearing back into play, which you tried to refute earlier and I accepted the refutation. But if you want to bring hearing back into it, so be it.
Anyway, final thought: I think they used excessive force, but not enough to be worth pursuing as a disciplinary action. I don't even particularly much think they need to be reprimanded or even have their training modified. I think they probably did ok under the circumstances. I absolutely agree with your statement that stress circumstances are a factor on human beings, even highly trained men. For all these reasons that's why I would not hestitate to have one of these guys on a plane with me, with his gun, and why I would absolutely not want to have some guy with basic gun safety training and a CCL with his gun next to me on that same plane. As you said, stress makes a difference, and it's even a factor for highly trained cops.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Jan 21, 2010 14:50:57 GMT -5
Ironically, Wayne has likely pointed to the best reasson of them all as to why there should be restrictions on guns.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 21, 2010 17:01:49 GMT -5
If you mean his point that even highly trained guys' shooting behavior is affected by being in a stress situation, yes, my point exactly.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Jan 22, 2010 4:23:45 GMT -5
I don't think that anyone would have had an issue with a single officer firing eleven rounds. Actually, I do - I object to police even having guns, never mind using them. And so the most of the police officers here. I concur. There have been far too many people shot by the cops in Victoria - many under highly dubious circumstances. In the UK I'm mindful of the young man who was virtually executed by the police essentially for wearing a puffy jacket while looking foreign. Even if the man posed a threat Wayne, there is no good reason to riddle a guy with bullets when you do not know for sure that he did anything criminal. There have to be some lines drawn, and this is one of them. People should be demanding to know why this man could not have been neutralised without being slaughtered. The cops should be forced to justify it. If they have good reasons, they should have nothing to fear.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 22, 2010 8:02:07 GMT -5
The irony is, I feel safe. I truly don't feel the need to own half a dozen guns. I know of no one that's been in a situation where a gun was needed or would have helped, and I know a lot of people, and I've lived 43 years.
I think the difference is this, and two-fold. One, liberals are collaborativists and conservatives are individualists. Liberals viscerally look to the team for security. Conservatives look to self-reliance.
Two, given the above, the two groups evaluate gun risks completely differently. Self-reliant conservatives think only about, "If I'm ever in a situation where I'll need a gun, I'll want one." They may know no one that's ever been in that situation, and neither will any of their family members going back three generations, but all the same, despite the risk of it ever occurring is next to nothing, the prospect of being in a situation where they need a gun and they don't have it is simply unacceptable: It's a critical failure to be self-reliant.
Collaborative liberals look at it globally. For one, it's natural for them to think of the cops as being the ones with the guns and they're ok with that because the cops are on the team so the liberals don't have to worry about it. For another, liberals calculate the risks completely differently. They don't think, "If I'm ever in that situation, I'll want my gun," though they might concede that if they ever WERE in that situation, sure, it would be nice to have it. Instead, they think, "What are the daily risks of my having a gun ready at hand throughout my entire life vs. the chance that one day out of that seventy years or so I might truly need it?" Bottom line: The risk of having a gun ready at hand every day for one's entire life, liberals calculate, is greater than the risk that they will ever be in a situation where they actually need it.
That's entirely aside from the arguments regarding the "freedom" to have a gun and the "deterrent" effect of guns against tyranny, among possibly others, and I don't want to get into those here. I just wanted to say it's obvious how the underlying difference between conservative and liberal attitudes toward self-reliance vs. collaborativism lead directly to their attitude toward guns. And it's one reason that liberals and conservatives think each other are completely nuts on this -- and why they will never talk each other into changing their minds. They're approaching the question from wildly different assumptions that almost certainly will never change. And which for that matter some scientists have discovered some evidence that such attitudes (individualism vs. collaborativism) are actually wired into the brain at birth. Throw in the "rationalization bias" that ALL people do to one extent or another -- where they seek out and accept on their face facts that agree with what they already believe, and avoid and reject facts that don't -- and you have a self-sustaining subjective reality that both groups are wrongly and absolutely convinced is objective.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 22, 2010 8:32:00 GMT -5
"Even if the man posed a threat Wayne, there is no good reason to riddle a guy with bullets when you do not know for sure that he did anything criminal. There have to be some lines drawn, and this is one of them. People should be demanding to know why this man could not have been neutralised without being slaughtered. The cops should be forced to justify it. If they have good reasons, they should have nothing to fear. "
Again I ask, if not shoot him, what were the police supposed to do?
"The irony is, I feel safe."
I do, too for the most part. But I've been in situations, and I've known other people whp have been in situations in which it would have been helpful to have a gun. And it's not like I hang out with a bunch of gang members, just plain old working class people. Only about one in three people will be the victim of a violent crime in their lifetimes. Pretty good odds, but considering the risk factors, I'd rather play it safe. If you don't, that's fine with me.
"Bottom line: The risk of having a gun ready at hand every day for one's entire life, liberals calculate, is greater than the risk that they will ever be in a situation where they actually need it."
If liberals will do unsafe things with guns, I suppose it would put them at risk. I think liberals are, by and large, ignorant of the safe and unsafe practices with firearms, and knee jerk when they read a story in the paper.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 22, 2010 8:55:07 GMT -5
I'm a safe driver -- I haven't had an accident in six years. I get my car back tomorrow. I was in a rush, my wife had just appeared right behind me as I was pulling out of the driveway, and I hit her car. If I'd done what I always do and kept an eye on the rearview mirror I would have seen her, but I've pulled out of my driveway thousands of times without incident and this time I was doing and thinking three other things at the same time. Just a moment of negligence out of six years of being absolutely reliably careful and, bang.
Moral: One can be the most careful guy in the world with guns but one is human and there will be "oops" moments. It's a statistical certainty. If you tell me you've never made a mistake in gun safety, Wayne, or cut corners once in a while because you were just in a hurry or whatever, I know you will be lying, or delusional.
I don't think it's just 'liberals' who are 'ignorant' about gun safety. I think it's a safe bet that in general liberals don't own many guns. Conservatives do. So it follows that, most of the time, when we see stories in the "newspaper" about people being injured through gun negligence, most of the time it's a conservative who's been negligent.
And it's not just accidents that add to the risk of having a gun in the home. A gun can be used deliberately to harm someone. It's in the "newspaper" all the time: People who own a gun, and use them absolutely safely, but they're hotheads and they end up shooting someone deliberately. It's nice that these people are usually brought up on criminal charges. It doesn't help the person they shot much.
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Jan 22, 2010 12:04:18 GMT -5
What do you suppose British officers would do in such a situation? If they knew the chap was armed, the armed response officer (most likely just the one) would shoot if someone's life was imminently in danger (and that does not include being afraid). He would be expected to fire one bullet only and would face an inquiry for doing so. If he fired more than one bullet, he would need to account for each and explain why the first one was no good. We expect them to be able to hit their target. If they did not know the chap was armed, the officers would be expected to use charm and a truncheon to apprehend the chap.
|
|