Did y'all see this? One tough mother, one safe baby, one dead punk. Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot - ABC News
I couldn't think of a better example to advocate for private ownership of firearms than this. Good for her...this story warms the heart.
I saw it- did you see where the punk/robber found her because her husband died of cancer? He must have been looking for an "easy mark" to rob. They were young, but she did the right thing. Her hubby would be proud, no doubt those were his guns he'd left behind! Good thing!!
Nice job, Mom! I bought my first police gun (Smith & Wesson Model 10 .38 Special revolver) when we transitioned to semi-auto pistols, more for nostalgia than anything. However, my wife liked the feel of it, so I taught her how to shoot it (quite well), and also how to use speed loaders. Whoever comes calling to my house with evil intentions when I'm at work is going to seriously regret it.
Here is another story with a less favorable outcome. Texas police kill 8th-grader carrying pellet gun - Yahoo! News I can understand the parents are upset but these comment make me think: lawsuit. Both he and his wife, Noralva, questioned why police repeatedly shot at their son and called the shooting unjustified. "Why was so much excess force used on a minor?" he asked. "Three shots. Why not one that would bring him down?" His wife, who demanded that the officers be punished, added: "What happened was an injustice." If someone is pointing a gun at me I would think of bringing them down but in that never giving them a chance to fire off a round at me.
This one is tragic...but unfortunately most cops will shoot until the suspect goes down...at least that's how I was trained, it's not shooting to kill, only eliminate the threat and 3 shots between 2 cops can happen in less than a second. The question that should be asked is how did a minor get a handgun?
I'll say it here.....if my son gets killed by the police because he pointed a gun at them (real or otherwise), I won't say a word that's critical of the officers (not that he ever would).
I might be a bleeding heart sometimes but not this time. This kid was an idiot or was suicidal. You don't point a gun at police without expecting to get shot. And, IMO, there is no such thing as excessive force when a gun is being pointed at you.
Exactly. It's not like playing battleship. You don't fire and wait to see if the shot hit. You do what it takes to neutralize the target. After three rounds, the target was neutralized. 15 rounds? That would be overkill. 3 rounds from two officers is only two shots for one and one for the other. That's nothing. Even then, only two shots hit. Perfectly reasonable.
After a guy killed a deputy sheriff in Florida during a traffic stop (wounding another and also killing a police dog), the sheriff's SWAT team found the suspect hiding in the woods, and he was determined to fight to the end. The SWAT team fired 110 rounds, hitting him 68 times, and he obviously died. When the media asked why the suspect was shot 68 times, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said "Because that's all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more. Quite frankly, we weren't taking any chances". (the sheriff was referring to all the ammunition in the team member's magazines, they obviously had more available for reloads). http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp
I saw that and I think the deputies in that case did do a little overkill... 68 rounds is a bit much, these aren't the days of Bonnie and Clyde but hey, at least unlike Bonnie and Clyde this guy was shooting back. The problem with firing like that in an urban setting is 110 rounds minus the 68 that found their target means there are still 42 rounds looking for a home in something or someone. Here in Dallas we recently had a shooting on a train where 3 cops killed 1 suspect, the suspect never fired yet 3 people other than the suspect were hit to include 1 cop and 2 passengers. That's just irresponsible.
That's different, of course. It's situational. I meant that 15 rounds in the case of this teenager would have been overkill. He was clearly neutralized after 3 rounds. Additionally, the teenager had not fired a weapon. In the case of the Florida killer, he had already murdered a police officer. You do what you have to do. Also, being in a wooded area, there was less risk of collateral damage.
I used that example just for a bit of comic relief.....how can you not laugh at the sheriff's response? That shootout took place deep in the Florida woods, where flying rounds weren't a concern as far as striking innocents. I believe the average number of rounds fired by a police officer during an armed encounter is around 3-5, which is actually higher than it was when the 6-shot revolver was standard issue. I knew I liked you for a reason. :biggrin:
Oh it was funny (I grinned) and I don't fault the Sheriff's department for the shootout...if it's in the woods have at it. The only concern is when like mentaility carries over to urban settings.
