Officers Shoot Armed Man

[Bottom line]

wow wrote:

Why do the police end up killing the perpetrators in all of these instances? Isn't it possible to wound the guy, inhabiting the possibility of his returning fire? Sounds to me like the police need to get some better training because they overreact to every situation.

Police are trained to shoot at "body mass", meaning the torso. "Winging" someone is great for the movies, but it isn't practical in the real world. Too much chance of missing and injuring/killing an innocent by-stander. If they shoot, they shoot to kill.

Further, they are trained to use deadly force (i.e., pull the trigger) as a last resort to protect themselves or other innocent people. Whether or not they had to use deadly force in this instance is the only question up for debate.

In other words, why they shot is the issue, not where they shot him.

[bro]

John Doe wrote:

At least 2 of the officers involved are of the highest moral character (I can only say that because I know those two very well). They did everything they could to deal with this individual until he pulled out a gun and pointed it at them. They were very very lucky that none of them were hurt. It is never a good day when a criminal's life has to be taken, but the situation was handled as good as that criminal allowed it to be

Taking a gun to buckhead is just asking for trouble. That police station in Buckhead has cameras on the streets I wonder if there was any video.

[Benny]

Were there witnesses (other than other cops) that stated the man pointed the gun at the cops - or that he even had a gun?

With all the bad press on the APD recently, I wouldn't put it past them to make up a story to cover another one of these up.

[wow]

The Real Salaam wrote:

<quoted text>
It's obvious that by the time the public hears the story, it's all doctored up to remove all doubt that the "suspect" was indeed evil and the police were pure and brave trying to do the right thing.
Only sheep still believe everything they hear on the news... and I count a few sheep above.

Sure, then you put on the suit and carry one on you hip and see how you do salaaam. Then you can sit back and judge. pos

[wow]

The Real Salaam wrote:

<quoted text>
The doubt against the police, is not only a credit to the media, but to the police themselves.
The Atlanta police are the same ones who tried to plant drugs at the scene of the 90 year old woman that they shot to death in her own home.
I think 11alive is obviously remiss in their reporting duty by publishing these half-a** stories.

You must have went to sherman williams and bought the a ton of paint brushes cause you are putting us all with the old narcotics team. Here's an idea, the police will be here longer than you, so stop being anti police because you think it makes you cool.

[wow]

wow wrote:

Why do the police end up killing the perpetrators in all of these instances? Isn't it possible to wound the guy, inhabiting the possibility of his returning fire? Sounds to me like the police need to get some better training because they overreact to every situation.

Change your name, You stand out there with a badge and gun and have some crazy sob with a pistol refuse your commands, and when he points it at you then lets see what you do. Good Shoot Good Cop.

[wow]

The Real Salaam wrote:

<quoted text>
Sir, with respect to the code of silence, it is not something that happens only in the movies. It indeed, does exist. It starts very early in becoming a police officer, and it is enforced throughout. Police officers, their partners,their lawyers, and their higher-ups, agree on a story the moment things go down and if "the truth" is irrelevant in that situation. The story that is most legit is what will come out.
How do you think that Sean Bell (R.I.P.), of NYC, is somehow accused of trying to run over a TEAM of police officers when he wasn't guilty of ANYTHING at all ?
He had nothing to hide. He had no drugs. He had no weapon. YET somehow, HE and his innocent buddies preparing for a wedding, decide "Hey, let's run over these police officers..." ?
If that story was not concocted, and repeated by ALL of those police officers, to benefit them then you insult a lot of peoples' intelligence.

Are you kidding? Bell got shot for a reason. The judge seen that clear as day. Look at the pictures on the net from the crime scene. The vehicle did hit the other officers and a parked vehicle. Before you keep typing about something to make a race point get you facts straight. As for the anti cop talk, you must have gotten popped for something back in the day and is not unhappy about, because you read the books in jail and think you are the jailhouse lawyer. As for you shooting someone in the are that is holding a weapon. Get real, Name the time and place and I'll bring the weapons and targets and we'll see if you can do it without the pressure of possibly getting shot or killed.

[Rotten Beans]

Wild Breeze wrote:

<quoted text>So before you start talking about someone's spelling, know your grammer, vocabulary, and English as a whole, or, in the least, in general.
I hope you read this and feel stupid; because, we all know you're really smart.

It is GRAMMAR not Grammer. Who is feeling stupid now?

[Wild Breeze]

Rotten Beans wrote:

<quoted text>
It is GRAMMAR not Grammer. Who is feeling stupid now?

Ever think that I might have done that purposefully to see who would be on their guard?

[Stats for you]

Wild Breeze wrote:

<quoted text>
You all want to know the REALLY sad thing? That none of you caught that this remark was wrong in itself. The reporter used the correct word "waved", seeing as how the criminal was moving his gun back and forth, instead of "waived", because I don't see the criminal having give up his gun in exchange for anything else.
So before you start talking about someone's spelling, know your grammer, vocabulary, and English as a whole, or, in the least, in general.
I hope you read this and feel stupid; because, we all know you're
really smart.

Aww that was nice, if your going to post a picture get rid of the zit on your chin first

[Stats for you]

Wild Breeze wrote:

<quoted text>
Ever think that I might have done that purposefully to see who would be on their guard?

bhwaaaaaaaa, you are a troll...

[Stats for you]

Wild Breeze wrote:

<quoted text>
Ever think that I might have done that purposefully to see who would be on their guard?

They can really pump you nuts(or is it nutzs) out at good ole Floyd College...

[Wild Breeze]

Stats for you wrote:

<quoted text>
Aww that was nice, if your going to post a picture get rid of the zit on your chin first

bhwaaaaaaaa, you are a troll...

They can really pump you nuts(or is it nutzs) out at good ole Floyd College...

First, Not a zit.
Second, I'd rather be short than stumpy.
Third, I don't/didn't go to Floyd.
Lastly, Grow up.

[Stats for you]

Wild Breeze wrote:

<quoted text>
First, Not a zit.
Second, I'd rather be short than stumpy.
Third, I don't/didn't go to Floyd.
Lastly, Grow up.

Bhwaaaaa, I am rubber and your glue...go play with your spell check on MS Word and leave us alone, oh and it is a zit...

[Wild Breeze]

Stats for you wrote:

<quoted text>
Bhwaaaaa, I am rubber and your glue...go play with your spell check on MS Word and leave us alone, oh and it is a zit...

You are so stupid.

[Jimmy]

Wild Breeze wrote:

<quoted text>
Ever think that I might have done that purposefully to see who would be on their guard?

I believe that! Not!

[The Real Salaam]

Alan wrote:

<quoted text>
...
Sorry, that you've had bad experiences dealing with cops. All I can say is that I have never used race as a reason to stop or question people. I have worked in predominantly black areas and found the easiest way to work with people is be honest. People knew that I wouldn't hassle them without reason. They also knew that I meant business when it was time to do my job. That is the type of professional police officers that we need today.

For the most part, I agree.
When I mention personal experiences with police, critics tend to imply I have a grudge. My gripe is that all the cops I see go unchecked, and abuse their power on a normal basis and are always given the benefit of the doubt...
This applies to even racist, sexist, or just plain having a bad day - and the accused is always the "bad guy" or expected to wish the cop a nice day after haven't been treated like dirt or being totally inconvenienced.
Here's an example of life in the inner city for a young black man.
Jogging down the block... stopped by police, layed face down on the floor, hands behind your back, pockets emptied, questioned about where you were going and why, questioned about where you are coming from, etc...
IF he asserts his rights, he gets cuffed and taken away, perhaps charged with disorderly.... resisting..... obstruction..... criminal trespass.... fitting the description of..... you name it. Or maybe he just gets killed.
Either way, who supports this man? Who gets the benefit of the doubt ?
Sean Bell (R.I.P.) is a prime example. That poor guy DID NOT decide to run over 3 cops on his wedding day... for no damn reason whatsoever.
However you have a**holes on here actually believing that he did - why? Because cops cover for each other and are given the benefit of the doubt and protected by the system.
You don't sound like those officers in the Sean Bell case, but considering that I have NEVER seen an office CHECK one of these rogue cops, I sincerely have my doubts about it.