Is that a state / federal thing where you live? cost related? I am glad to hear that you didn't have to use your weapon.
As far as the rubber bullets and bean bags? I believe it's mostly State related, but also Federal in some instances. It all comes down to they don't want security officers running around with shotguns and high powered rifles ( which I agree with ). unfortunately, they designed the non-lethal ammo for those same weapons only.
It's rather asinine, in my opinion. They could very well make a shotgun style device which could be used to fire the rubber slug or bean bag but not withstand the force of firing a regular shell/slug.
In fact, there was a company here a few years ago that was selling side-handle batons that fired bean bags from the end. Not sure what ever happened to those.
The only real non-lethal ammo for pistols would be what we refer to as "stingers", which are actually bullet cases filled with tiny plastic bb's with a clear plastic "shell". But they have no real stopping power and are mainly a deterrent. Quite worthless really, as they'd only be useful in a non-escalated situation, in which case you wouldn't need the gun anyway.
For the record, tazers don't always work. There was this bit in the news recently here where a guy was tazered over a dozen times, and not only did it not stop him, but he had to be -told- what happened the next morning. Guy was drugged up to high heaven.
For the record, tazers don't always work. There was this bit in the news recently here where a guy was tazered over a dozen times, and not only did it not stop him, but he had to be -told- what happened the next morning. Guy was drugged up to high heaven.
Reference? I have a hard time trying to believe someone can have that kind of control over their nerve system.
Hooks in ?
Was it a stun gun or a taser? The 2 are different.
As claims that people are immune to tasers. All I have found is here say. Nothing even remotely credible yet. Though I am still looking.
Edit gonna add some references as far as difference and what not goes.
---STOPPING POWER Stun guns have an effectiveness rating of approximately 86%. Some people who are very aggressive or on drugs can avoid the effect of a stun gun. A taser has an effectiveness rating of 100%. In pre-release tests of 4000 subjects not one person was able to overcome the effects of a taser. A taser has a higher incapacitation rate than a 9 mm handgun without the side effects. Tasers can penetrate 2" of clothing.
---ENERGY TRANSMITTED A stun gun transmits from 80,000-975,000 volts with 7-14 watts of energy. A taser transmits 50,000 volts with 18 watts of energy. It is the wattage that makes the difference here.
---MUSCULAR AND NERVOUS SYSTEM Stun Guns affect the nervous system. Tasers affect the nervous and muscular system.
Don't know how reliable this site is. I saw another one earlier that supported what this site says. I will link it if I can find it again. as well as anything else I come across.
The new breed of tasers including the C2 and M18 devices, are different. EMD/ EMC Electro- Muscular-Disruption /Electro-Muscular-Control technology devices don't just interfere with the central nervous system of the attacker they are used on. EMC weapons use a more powerful technology operating in the 18-26 Watt range, to completely over-ride the central nervous system and directly control the skeletal muscles. There is no possibility to fight through the effects of the new tasers, because they create involuntary and completely uncontrollable contractions of the muscles.
Seems to me if he just had a sword..would it not be prudent to just shoot him in the leg...rather that a fatal death blow. I'm just trying to think of situation with a guy coming at me with a sword.wtf would i do fatal death blow or a dropum shot.Guess it depends on how good of shot you are.
That is the same thing I thought when I read this yesterday.
And neither of you have ever fired a gun at a moving entity. Just a guess.
Assumptions are nice aren't they?
How bloody hard is it at point blank range to put a round in the lower part of a mans torso? This rent - a - cop should be able to put a round where he wants it. If not, what the hell is he doing with a job like this?
I also do not see any reason this rent - a - cop should not have spotted this guy with a sword / swords. Ninja jokes commence. Giving him enough time to process the situation. I realize given the human factor the chances of him not noticing this man until the last minute is likely. But then again that is his error and the rent - a - cop should be held accountable. Isn't that his job to be aware of his surroundings? I hate rent - a - cops with guns, the main reason is training that they are required to have and maintain for their job is minimal in the majority of company's who offer the service.
Granted, there is nothing non - leathal about a bullet entering the body. How about a Tazer? They drop anything living dead, in it's tracks. Even doped up meth heads who can take 6 bullets and keep going. Not to mention, tazers having very little risk for any lasting harm, minus the fall. Not to mention the "oh shit where is that bullet going to go if I miss or it exits the body."
Edited to add: I chatted with a security guard at a Grey Hound station in Nashville TN about 3 years ago. I was asking him about his job and what it required for him to carry his firearm. He said the only thing required was a permit, that's it. Makes me all warm and fuzzy knowing this out of shape phuck, with no training, who probably couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag (because of the shape he was in) had only one option.
Considering that we don't really seem to know much about what transpired other than it happened in a parking lot, it's kind of hard to fault the guard for not being aware of his surroundings. Perhaps, if the parking lot is empty and the guy was right infront of him then yes, he probably should have done something different. However, what if the parking lot is rather full, and the guy with the swords happens to be hiding behind a van and pops out? Is that what happened? The article doesn't say, therefore we don't know, so it's pointless to thinking of something along the lines of (which your statements would seem to dictate): "Well, OBVIOUSLY he should have seen him and acted differently!"
I would also like to mention that you are trained to shoot center mass. There are too many variables to every encounter to be able to think "He should have shot to disable." Distance, movement, and the adrenaline factor are all very big things. I would also like to point out the error in the thought of "Oh, there's someone 20 feet from me with a knife/sword, I can shoot him before he gets to me!" The distance can be closed VERY quickly, and now the guy with the sword is right on top of you; are you still going to try and disable them?
Another point I would like to make is, I know some security companies that have their officers carrying semi-automatics, require that there is no round chambered. You then have to draw, chamber a round, and then take aim at the target. With practice, drawing and aiming / drawing and chambering before coming to bear can be done fairly quickly, but again you have to take into account the factor of adrenaline and hightened emotional state.
And lastly I would like to point out from Graham Vs Connor: "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." And as I said earlier, we really don't know much of what happened to begin with, which makes any comment stating what he SHOULD have done rather moot.
------------------------------------------------------------ You can't win - if you strike me down I shall respawn more powerful than you could possibly imagine!
Seems to me if he just had a sword..would it not be prudent to just shoot him in the leg...rather that a fatal death blow. I'm just trying to think of situation with a guy coming at me with a sword.wtf would i do fatal death blow or a dropum shot.Guess it depends on how good of shot you are.
That is the same thing I thought when I read this yesterday.
And neither of you have ever fired a gun at a moving entity. Just a guess.
Assumptions are nice aren't they?
How bloody hard is it at point blank range to put a round in the lower part of a mans torso? This rent - a - cop should be able to put a round where he wants it. If not, what the hell is he doing with a job like this?
I also do not see any reason this rent - a - cop should not have spotted this guy with a sword / swords. Ninja jokes commence. Giving him enough time to process the situation. I realize given the human factor the chances of him not noticing this man until the last minute is likely. But then again that is his error and the rent - a - cop should be held accountable. Isn't that his job to be aware of his surroundings? I hate rent - a - cops with guns, the main reason is training that they are required to have and maintain for their job is minimal in the majority of company's who offer the service.
Granted, there is nothing non - leathal about a bullet entering the body. How about a Tazer? They drop anything living dead, in it's tracks. Even doped up meth heads who can take 6 bullets and keep going. Not to mention, tazers having very little risk for any lasting harm, minus the fall. Not to mention the "oh shit where is that bullet going to go if I miss or it exits the body."
Edited to add: I chatted with a security guard at a Grey Hound station in Nashville TN about 3 years ago. I was asking him about his job and what it required for him to carry his firearm. He said the only thing required was a permit, that's it. Makes me all warm and fuzzy knowing this out of shape phuck, with no training, who probably couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag (because of the shape he was in) had only one option.
Considering that we don't really seem to know much about what transpired other than it happened in a parking lot, it's kind of hard to fault the guard for "not being aware of his surroundings." Perhaps, if the parking lot is empty and the guy was right infront of him then yes, he probably should have done something different. However, what if the parking lot is rather full, and the guy with the swords happens to be hiding behind a van and pops out? Is that what happened? The article doesn't say, therefore we don't know, so it's pointless to be saying "Well, OBVIOUSLY he should have seen him and acted differently!"
I would also like to mention that you are trained to shoot center mass. There are too many variables to every encounter to be able to say "He should have shot to disable." Distance, movement, and the adrenaline factor are all very big things. I would also like to point out the error in the thought of "Oh, there's someone 20 feet from me with a knife/sword, I can shoot him before he gets to me!" The distance can be closed VERY quickly, and now the guy with the sword is right on top of you; are you still going to try and disable them?
Another point I would like to make is, I know some security companies that have their officers carrying semi-automatics, require that there is no round chambered. You then have to draw, chamber a round, and then take aim at the target. With practice, drawing and aiming / drawing and chambering before coming to bear can be done fairly quickly, but again you have to take into account the factor of adrenaline and hightened emotional state.
And lastly I would like to point out from Graham Vs Connor: "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." And as I said earlier, we really don't know much of what happened to begin with, which makes any comment stating what he SHOULD have done rather moot.
You sure do like putting words in peoples mouths. I like the misquotes as well. nice touch.
Edit: Would you elaborate on the purpose or reasoning behind this rant, please? I find a lot of it amusing. Mainly ...
You sure do like putting words in peoples mouths. I like the misquotes as well. nice touch.
How am I putting words in your mouth? I kept all of the "quote boxes" in to show that I was replying to both you and Frodus. Reason being, Frodus mentioned shooting the person in the leg as opposed to a non-fatal shot. You then replied that you were thinking the same thing. You also said "Isn't that his job to be aware of his surroundings?" in addition to "How bloody hard is it at point blank range to put a round in the lower part of a man's torso?"
I then replied stating that it's not as easy as either of you seem to think it is. My apologies that it apparently confused you into thinking I was "misquoting you" when I took your line of thought (evidenced in the above, actual quotes) and came up with a generic line of thought which I then put in quotations; personally I'm not sure how else to write that. However, maybe it'd be a "nice touch" for me to go back and edit that so it's not so crazily confusing to you.
----------------------------------
In reply to your edit: I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Are you wanting me to see where you said "I don't even know that I am against what happened here, since I don't and probably never will or care to know everything that took place. I just find this story / case rather odd for a number of reasons, that I think are / should be fairly obvious." by chance? If so, great, but it doesn't matter considering I was responding to the part about shooting someone to disable. Why is that so hard to understand?
I'm not going to bother getting into debate with you about the irony of calling what I wrote a rant compared to your rambling on about how much you despise "rent - a - cops" (that's a quote btw). I also don't get why you want me to "elaborate on the purpose or reasoning" (another quote) of what I wrote, since if you paid the least attention to it and what I was responding to, it's all very self explanatory.
BTW: If you didn't understand the point behind me mentioning Graham Vs Connor, then I give up.
------------------------------------------------------------ You can't win - if you strike me down I shall respawn more powerful than you could possibly imagine!
You sure do like putting words in peoples mouths. I like the misquotes as well. nice touch.
How am I putting words in your mouth? I kept all of the "quote boxes" in to show that I was replying to both you and Frodus. Reason being, Frodus mentioned shooting the person in the leg as opposed to a non-fatal shot. You then replied that you were thinking the same thing. You also said "Isn't that his job to be aware of his surroundings?" in addition to "How bloody hard is it at point blank range to put a round in the lower part of a man's torso?"
I then replied stating that it's not as easy as either of you seem to think it is. My apologies that it apparently confused you into thinking I was "misquoting you" when I took your line of thought (evidenced in the above, actual quotes) and came up with a generic line of thought which I then put in quotations; personally I'm not sure how else to write that. However, maybe it'd be a "nice touch" for me to go back and edit that so it's not so crazily confusing to you.
Guess it not so much a misquote as a putting words in my mouth. Not to mention again the lack to notice the obvious. Before you go on a rant, atleast glance at the thread (looking for the person you are replyig to) to make sure that the poster your trying to rip into didn't already mirror the main point of your rant.
I then replied stating that it's not as easy as either of you seem to think it is. <--- Who the hell said anything about it being easy.
Guess it not so much a misquote as a putting words in my mouth. Not to mention again the lack to notice the obvious. Before you go on a rant, atleast glance at the thread (looking for the person you are replyig to) to make sure that the poster your trying to rip into didn't already mirror the main point of your rant. I then replied stating that it's not as easy as either of you seem to think it is. <--- Who the hell said anything about it being easy.
Sigh.. again with calling it a rant. I also find it funny that you think I was "trying to rip into" anyone, when you're the one who keeps looking for any little thing I've said to turn around as if it defeats everything I've written; you're very defensive about this whole matter.
And while neither of you outright said it was "easy," the fact that you said "How bloody hard is it at point blank range to put a round in the lower part of a man's torso?" would imply that you apparently think it is. And while yes, if I'm standing here, and he's standing there, that's pretty easy. However, all I was trying to say is that there are many more variables to take into account that show it's NOT that easy. Easy being once again, what any reasonable person would take from your statement.
But whatever, I'm not going to waste my time with you trying to flip everything around and the lack of basic comprehension and deduction you seem to show.
------------------------------------------------------------ You can't win - if you strike me down I shall respawn more powerful than you could possibly imagine!
For the record, tazers don't always work. There was this bit in the news recently here where a guy was tazered over a dozen times, and not only did it not stop him, but he had to be -told- what happened the next morning. Guy was drugged up to high heaven.
Reference? I have a hard time trying to believe someone can have that kind of control over their nerve system.
Hooks in ?
Was it a stun gun or a taser? The 2 are different.
As claims that people are immune to tasers. All I have found is here say. Nothing even remotely credible yet. Though I am still looking.
Edit gonna add some references as far as difference and what not goes.
---STOPPING POWER Stun guns have an effectiveness rating of approximately 86%. Some people who are very aggressive or on drugs can avoid the effect of a stun gun. A taser has an effectiveness rating of 100%. In pre-release tests of 4000 subjects not one person was able to overcome the effects of a taser. A taser has a higher incapacitation rate than a 9 mm handgun without the side effects. Tasers can penetrate 2" of clothing.
---ENERGY TRANSMITTED A stun gun transmits from 80,000-975,000 volts with 7-14 watts of energy. A taser transmits 50,000 volts with 18 watts of energy. It is the wattage that makes the difference here.
---MUSCULAR AND NERVOUS SYSTEM Stun Guns affect the nervous system. Tasers affect the nervous and muscular system.
Don't know how reliable this site is. I saw another one earlier that supported what this site says. I will link it if I can find it again. as well as anything else I come across.
The new breed of tasers including the C2 and M18 devices, are different. EMD/ EMC Electro- Muscular-Disruption /Electro-Muscular-Control technology devices don't just interfere with the central nervous system of the attacker they are used on. EMC weapons use a more powerful technology operating in the 18-26 Watt range, to completely over-ride the central nervous system and directly control the skeletal muscles. There is no possibility to fight through the effects of the new tasers, because they create involuntary and completely uncontrollable contractions of the muscles.
It's true...my dad was a cop for over twenty years...I thought that this kind of stuff was common knowledge by now.
As for the story..the only thing that makes me dubious was that it was at the scientology center...they aren't exactly known for their discretion or good judgement when it comes to dealing with people that they percieve to be a threat
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Guess it not so much a misquote as a putting words in my mouth. Not to mention again the lack to notice the obvious. Before you go on a rant, atleast glance at the thread (looking for the person you are replyig to) to make sure that the poster your trying to rip into didn't already mirror the main point of your rant. I then replied stating that it's not as easy as either of you seem to think it is. <--- Who the hell said anything about it being easy.
Sigh.. again with calling it a rant. I also find it funny that you think I was "trying to rip into" anyone, when you're the one who keeps looking for any little thing I've said to turn around as if it defeats everything I've written; you're very defensive about this whole matter.
++The reason I know you did was... The lack of observation you unknowingly showed. Knee jerk reaction is what I believe they are called. How do I know what they are called? Because I do them from time to time. I also own up to them.
And while neither of you outright said it was "easy," the fact that you said "How bloody hard is it at point blank range to put a round in the lower part of a man's torso?" would imply that you apparently think it is.
How hard is it?
Police officers show similar types of restraint all the time. Why? Because they constantly train for it. If they just acted off of adrenaline or emotions there wouldn't be a problem with overcrowding.
Military show similar types of restraint and train for it all the time (not specificly this). But similar as in, rules of engagement.
Any govt' agency which reguires the use of a firearm, train regularly.
That fire arm is no where near being the first resort. If I was implying anything it was the lack or seeming lack training. This is an assumption and I thoguht I made it pretty clear that it was. I make this assumption from the conversations and observation and experiances.
If a person can not control their emotions they do not deserve a fire arm. Let alone wield one in public. This response can be applied to your first post.
And while yes, if I'm standing here, and he's standing there, that's pretty easy. However, all I was trying to say is that there are many more variables to take into account that show it's NOT that easy. Easy being once again, what any reasonable person would take from your statement.
Training. How bloody hard is it to spot the man with a sword or 2? This is the mans job. To know what is going on with the surrondings of the space he is hired to protect. A person just doesn't pull a sword out of his hip pocket and yell "LLLLEEERRROOOYYY"
There is room for human error to allow this. However training again help eliminate this.
This isn't the Wild West. And this man should be held accountable. That isn't a bad thing you know. Dictionary time if that word throws you off.
But whatever, I'm not going to waste my time with you trying to flip everything around and the lack of basic comprehension and deduction you seem to show.
I am not flipping nothing around on you.
Do not forget to put me on ignore as well. Thank you.
For the record, tazers don't always work. There was this bit in the news recently here where a guy was tazered over a dozen times, and not only did it not stop him, but he had to be -told- what happened the next morning. Guy was drugged up to high heaven.
Reference? I have a hard time trying to believe someone can have that kind of control over their nerve system.
Hooks in ?
Was it a stun gun or a taser? The 2 are different.
As claims that people are immune to tasers. All I have found is here say. Nothing even remotely credible yet. Though I am still looking.
Edit gonna add some references as far as difference and what not goes.
---STOPPING POWER Stun guns have an effectiveness rating of approximately 86%. Some people who are very aggressive or on drugs can avoid the effect of a stun gun. A taser has an effectiveness rating of 100%. In pre-release tests of 4000 subjects not one person was able to overcome the effects of a taser. A taser has a higher incapacitation rate than a 9 mm handgun without the side effects. Tasers can penetrate 2" of clothing.
---ENERGY TRANSMITTED A stun gun transmits from 80,000-975,000 volts with 7-14 watts of energy. A taser transmits 50,000 volts with 18 watts of energy. It is the wattage that makes the difference here.
---MUSCULAR AND NERVOUS SYSTEM Stun Guns affect the nervous system. Tasers affect the nervous and muscular system.
Don't know how reliable this site is. I saw another one earlier that supported what this site says. I will link it if I can find it again. as well as anything else I come across.
The new breed of tasers including the C2 and M18 devices, are different. EMD/ EMC Electro- Muscular-Disruption /Electro-Muscular-Control technology devices don't just interfere with the central nervous system of the attacker they are used on. EMC weapons use a more powerful technology operating in the 18-26 Watt range, to completely over-ride the central nervous system and directly control the skeletal muscles. There is no possibility to fight through the effects of the new tasers, because they create involuntary and completely uncontrollable contractions of the muscles.
It's true...my dad was a cop for over twenty years...I thought that this kind of stuff was common knowledge by now.
As for the story..the only thing that makes me dubious was that it was at the scientology center...they aren't exactly known for their discretion or good judgement when it comes to dealing with people that they percieve to be a threat
Know what model they were using? I can just pm, I derailed a bit more than I should have earlier with the tazer bits. Edit: Yep you guys / gals are right. I found what I was looking for. It seems I over looked the obvious this morning. Go figure... =P Guess my initial information was a bit more dated.
The tests varied. The data they have is from 2006, it was using ECD models ( the newer stuff). : P
Comments
Is that a state / federal thing where you live? cost related? I am glad to hear that you didn't have to use your weapon.
As far as the rubber bullets and bean bags? I believe it's mostly State related, but also Federal in some instances. It all comes down to they don't want security officers running around with shotguns and high powered rifles ( which I agree with ). unfortunately, they designed the non-lethal ammo for those same weapons only.
It's rather asinine, in my opinion. They could very well make a shotgun style device which could be used to fire the rubber slug or bean bag but not withstand the force of firing a regular shell/slug.
In fact, there was a company here a few years ago that was selling side-handle batons that fired bean bags from the end. Not sure what ever happened to those.
The only real non-lethal ammo for pistols would be what we refer to as "stingers", which are actually bullet cases filled with tiny plastic bb's with a clear plastic "shell". But they have no real stopping power and are mainly a deterrent. Quite worthless really, as they'd only be useful in a non-escalated situation, in which case you wouldn't need the gun anyway.
For the record, tazers don't always work. There was this bit in the news recently here where a guy was tazered over a dozen times, and not only did it not stop him, but he had to be -told- what happened the next morning. Guy was drugged up to high heaven.
Reference? I have a hard time trying to believe someone can have that kind of control over their nerve system.
Hooks in ?
Was it a stun gun or a taser? The 2 are different.
As claims that people are immune to tasers. All I have found is here say. Nothing even remotely credible yet. Though I am still looking.
Edit gonna add some references as far as difference and what not goes.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Self-Defense-Stun-Guns-and-Tasers-A-Comparison&id=381942
---STOPPING POWER Stun guns have an effectiveness rating of approximately 86%. Some people who are very aggressive or on drugs can avoid the effect of a stun gun. A taser has an effectiveness rating of 100%. In pre-release tests of 4000 subjects not one person was able to overcome the effects of a taser. A taser has a higher incapacitation rate than a 9 mm handgun without the side effects. Tasers can penetrate 2" of clothing.
---ENERGY TRANSMITTED A stun gun transmits from 80,000-975,000 volts with 7-14 watts of energy. A taser transmits 50,000 volts with 18 watts of energy. It is the wattage that makes the difference here.
---MUSCULAR AND NERVOUS SYSTEM Stun Guns affect the nervous system. Tasers affect the nervous and muscular system.
Don't know how reliable this site is. I saw another one earlier that supported what this site says. I will link it if I can find it again. as well as anything else I come across.
http://www.yourbestselfdefenseproducts.com/stunguns_vs_tasers
The new breed of tasers including the C2 and M18 devices, are different. EMD/ EMC Electro- Muscular-Disruption /Electro-Muscular-Control technology devices don't just interfere with the central nervous system of the attacker they are used on. EMC weapons use a more powerful technology operating in the 18-26 Watt range, to completely over-ride the central nervous system and directly control the skeletal muscles. There is no possibility to fight through the effects of the new tasers, because they create involuntary and completely uncontrollable contractions of the muscles.
I know I shouldn't laugh, But dam that thing was pissed. Anyways, I am getting bored of looking. I am willing to accept the possibility. Just would like a reference if anyone knows of one.
That is the same thing I thought when I read this yesterday.
And neither of you have ever fired a gun at a moving entity. Just a guess.
Assumptions are nice aren't they?
How bloody hard is it at point blank range to put a round in the lower part of a mans torso? This rent - a - cop should be able to put a round where he wants it. If not, what the hell is he doing with a job like this?
I also do not see any reason this rent - a - cop should not have spotted this guy with a sword / swords. Ninja jokes commence. Giving him enough time to process the situation. I realize given the human factor the chances of him not noticing this man until the last minute is likely. But then again that is his error and the rent - a - cop should be held accountable. Isn't that his job to be aware of his surroundings? I hate rent - a - cops with guns, the main reason is training that they are required to have and maintain for their job is minimal in the majority of company's who offer the service.
Granted, there is nothing non - leathal about a bullet entering the body. How about a Tazer? They drop anything living dead, in it's tracks. Even doped up meth heads who can take 6 bullets and keep going. Not to mention, tazers having very little risk for any lasting harm, minus the fall. Not to mention the "oh shit where is that bullet going to go if I miss or it exits the body."
Edited to add: I chatted with a security guard at a Grey Hound station in Nashville TN about 3 years ago. I was asking him about his job and what it required for him to carry his firearm. He said the only thing required was a permit, that's it. Makes me all warm and fuzzy knowing this out of shape phuck, with no training, who probably couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag (because of the shape he was in) had only one option.
Considering that we don't really seem to know much about what transpired other than it happened in a parking lot, it's kind of hard to fault the guard for not being aware of his surroundings. Perhaps, if the parking lot is empty and the guy was right infront of him then yes, he probably should have done something different. However, what if the parking lot is rather full, and the guy with the swords happens to be hiding behind a van and pops out? Is that what happened? The article doesn't say, therefore we don't know, so it's pointless to thinking of something along the lines of (which your statements would seem to dictate): "Well, OBVIOUSLY he should have seen him and acted differently!"
I would also like to mention that you are trained to shoot center mass. There are too many variables to every encounter to be able to think "He should have shot to disable." Distance, movement, and the adrenaline factor are all very big things. I would also like to point out the error in the thought of "Oh, there's someone 20 feet from me with a knife/sword, I can shoot him before he gets to me!" The distance can be closed VERY quickly, and now the guy with the sword is right on top of you; are you still going to try and disable them?
Another point I would like to make is, I know some security companies that have their officers carrying semi-automatics, require that there is no round chambered. You then have to draw, chamber a round, and then take aim at the target. With practice, drawing and aiming / drawing and chambering before coming to bear can be done fairly quickly, but again you have to take into account the factor of adrenaline and hightened emotional state.
And lastly I would like to point out from Graham Vs Connor: "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." And as I said earlier, we really don't know much of what happened to begin with, which makes any comment stating what he SHOULD have done rather moot.
------------------------------------------------------------
You can't win - if you strike me down I shall respawn more powerful than you could possibly imagine!
That is the same thing I thought when I read this yesterday.
And neither of you have ever fired a gun at a moving entity. Just a guess.
Assumptions are nice aren't they?
How bloody hard is it at point blank range to put a round in the lower part of a mans torso? This rent - a - cop should be able to put a round where he wants it. If not, what the hell is he doing with a job like this?
I also do not see any reason this rent - a - cop should not have spotted this guy with a sword / swords. Ninja jokes commence. Giving him enough time to process the situation. I realize given the human factor the chances of him not noticing this man until the last minute is likely. But then again that is his error and the rent - a - cop should be held accountable. Isn't that his job to be aware of his surroundings? I hate rent - a - cops with guns, the main reason is training that they are required to have and maintain for their job is minimal in the majority of company's who offer the service.
Granted, there is nothing non - leathal about a bullet entering the body. How about a Tazer? They drop anything living dead, in it's tracks. Even doped up meth heads who can take 6 bullets and keep going. Not to mention, tazers having very little risk for any lasting harm, minus the fall. Not to mention the "oh shit where is that bullet going to go if I miss or it exits the body."
Edited to add: I chatted with a security guard at a Grey Hound station in Nashville TN about 3 years ago. I was asking him about his job and what it required for him to carry his firearm. He said the only thing required was a permit, that's it. Makes me all warm and fuzzy knowing this out of shape phuck, with no training, who probably couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag (because of the shape he was in) had only one option.
Considering that we don't really seem to know much about what transpired other than it happened in a parking lot, it's kind of hard to fault the guard for "not being aware of his surroundings." Perhaps, if the parking lot is empty and the guy was right infront of him then yes, he probably should have done something different. However, what if the parking lot is rather full, and the guy with the swords happens to be hiding behind a van and pops out? Is that what happened? The article doesn't say, therefore we don't know, so it's pointless to be saying "Well, OBVIOUSLY he should have seen him and acted differently!"
I would also like to mention that you are trained to shoot center mass. There are too many variables to every encounter to be able to say "He should have shot to disable." Distance, movement, and the adrenaline factor are all very big things. I would also like to point out the error in the thought of "Oh, there's someone 20 feet from me with a knife/sword, I can shoot him before he gets to me!" The distance can be closed VERY quickly, and now the guy with the sword is right on top of you; are you still going to try and disable them?
Another point I would like to make is, I know some security companies that have their officers carrying semi-automatics, require that there is no round chambered. You then have to draw, chamber a round, and then take aim at the target. With practice, drawing and aiming / drawing and chambering before coming to bear can be done fairly quickly, but again you have to take into account the factor of adrenaline and hightened emotional state.
And lastly I would like to point out from Graham Vs Connor: "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." And as I said earlier, we really don't know much of what happened to begin with, which makes any comment stating what he SHOULD have done rather moot.
You sure do like putting words in peoples mouths. I like the misquotes as well. nice touch.
Edit: Would you elaborate on the purpose or reasoning behind this rant, please? I find a lot of it amusing. Mainly ...
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/2473759#2473759
selective reading? Kind of hard to miss considering it was on the same page!
B.T.W.
This wasn't an Officer.
How am I putting words in your mouth? I kept all of the "quote boxes" in to show that I was replying to both you and Frodus. Reason being, Frodus mentioned shooting the person in the leg as opposed to a non-fatal shot. You then replied that you were thinking the same thing. You also said "Isn't that his job to be aware of his surroundings?" in addition to "How bloody hard is it at point blank range to put a round in the lower part of a man's torso?"
I then replied stating that it's not as easy as either of you seem to think it is. My apologies that it apparently confused you into thinking I was "misquoting you" when I took your line of thought (evidenced in the above, actual quotes) and came up with a generic line of thought which I then put in quotations; personally I'm not sure how else to write that. However, maybe it'd be a "nice touch" for me to go back and edit that so it's not so crazily confusing to you.
----------------------------------
In reply to your edit: I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Are you wanting me to see where you said "I don't even know that I am against what happened here, since I don't and probably never will or care to know everything that took place. I just find this story / case rather odd for a number of reasons, that I think are / should be fairly obvious." by chance? If so, great, but it doesn't matter considering I was responding to the part about shooting someone to disable. Why is that so hard to understand?
I'm not going to bother getting into debate with you about the irony of calling what I wrote a rant compared to your rambling on about how much you despise "rent - a - cops" (that's a quote btw). I also don't get why you want me to "elaborate on the purpose or reasoning" (another quote) of what I wrote, since if you paid the least attention to it and what I was responding to, it's all very self explanatory.
BTW: If you didn't understand the point behind me mentioning Graham Vs Connor, then I give up.
------------------------------------------------------------
You can't win - if you strike me down I shall respawn more powerful than you could possibly imagine!
How am I putting words in your mouth? I kept all of the "quote boxes" in to show that I was replying to both you and Frodus. Reason being, Frodus mentioned shooting the person in the leg as opposed to a non-fatal shot. You then replied that you were thinking the same thing. You also said "Isn't that his job to be aware of his surroundings?" in addition to "How bloody hard is it at point blank range to put a round in the lower part of a man's torso?"
I then replied stating that it's not as easy as either of you seem to think it is. My apologies that it apparently confused you into thinking I was "misquoting you" when I took your line of thought (evidenced in the above, actual quotes) and came up with a generic line of thought which I then put in quotations; personally I'm not sure how else to write that. However, maybe it'd be a "nice touch" for me to go back and edit that so it's not so crazily confusing to you.
Guess it not so much a misquote as a putting words in my mouth. Not to mention again the lack to notice the obvious. Before you go on a rant, atleast glance at the thread (looking for the person you are replyig to) to make sure that the poster your trying to rip into didn't already mirror the main point of your rant.
I then replied stating that it's not as easy as either of you seem to think it is. <--- Who the hell said anything about it being easy.
Sigh.. again with calling it a rant. I also find it funny that you think I was "trying to rip into" anyone, when you're the one who keeps looking for any little thing I've said to turn around as if it defeats everything I've written; you're very defensive about this whole matter.
And while neither of you outright said it was "easy," the fact that you said "How bloody hard is it at point blank range to put a round in the lower part of a man's torso?" would imply that you apparently think it is. And while yes, if I'm standing here, and he's standing there, that's pretty easy. However, all I was trying to say is that there are many more variables to take into account that show it's NOT that easy. Easy being once again, what any reasonable person would take from your statement.
But whatever, I'm not going to waste my time with you trying to flip everything around and the lack of basic comprehension and deduction you seem to show.
------------------------------------------------------------
You can't win - if you strike me down I shall respawn more powerful than you could possibly imagine!
Reference? I have a hard time trying to believe someone can have that kind of control over their nerve system.
Hooks in ?
Was it a stun gun or a taser? The 2 are different.
As claims that people are immune to tasers. All I have found is here say. Nothing even remotely credible yet. Though I am still looking.
Edit gonna add some references as far as difference and what not goes.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Self-Defense-Stun-Guns-and-Tasers-A-Comparison&id=381942
---STOPPING POWER Stun guns have an effectiveness rating of approximately 86%. Some people who are very aggressive or on drugs can avoid the effect of a stun gun. A taser has an effectiveness rating of 100%. In pre-release tests of 4000 subjects not one person was able to overcome the effects of a taser. A taser has a higher incapacitation rate than a 9 mm handgun without the side effects. Tasers can penetrate 2" of clothing.
---ENERGY TRANSMITTED A stun gun transmits from 80,000-975,000 volts with 7-14 watts of energy. A taser transmits 50,000 volts with 18 watts of energy. It is the wattage that makes the difference here.
---MUSCULAR AND NERVOUS SYSTEM Stun Guns affect the nervous system. Tasers affect the nervous and muscular system.
Don't know how reliable this site is. I saw another one earlier that supported what this site says. I will link it if I can find it again. as well as anything else I come across.
http://www.yourbestselfdefenseproducts.com/stunguns_vs_tasers
The new breed of tasers including the C2 and M18 devices, are different. EMD/ EMC Electro- Muscular-Disruption /Electro-Muscular-Control technology devices don't just interfere with the central nervous system of the attacker they are used on. EMC weapons use a more powerful technology operating in the 18-26 Watt range, to completely over-ride the central nervous system and directly control the skeletal muscles. There is no possibility to fight through the effects of the new tasers, because they create involuntary and completely uncontrollable contractions of the muscles.
I know I shouldn't laugh, But dam that thing was pissed. Anyways, I am getting bored of looking. I am willing to accept the possibility. Just would like a reference if anyone knows of one.
It's true...my dad was a cop for over twenty years...I thought that this kind of stuff was common knowledge by now.
As for the story..the only thing that makes me dubious was that it was at the scientology center...they aren't exactly known for their discretion or good judgement when it comes to dealing with people that they percieve to be a threat
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Sigh.. again with calling it a rant. I also find it funny that you think I was "trying to rip into" anyone, when you're the one who keeps looking for any little thing I've said to turn around as if it defeats everything I've written; you're very defensive about this whole matter.
++The reason I know you did was... The lack of observation you unknowingly showed. Knee jerk reaction is what I believe they are called. How do I know what they are called? Because I do them from time to time. I also own up to them.
And while neither of you outright said it was "easy," the fact that you said "How bloody hard is it at point blank range to put a round in the lower part of a man's torso?" would imply that you apparently think it is.
How hard is it?
Police officers show similar types of restraint all the time. Why? Because they constantly train for it. If they just acted off of adrenaline or emotions there wouldn't be a problem with overcrowding.
Military show similar types of restraint and train for it all the time (not specificly this). But similar as in, rules of engagement.
Any govt' agency which reguires the use of a firearm, train regularly.
That fire arm is no where near being the first resort. If I was implying anything it was the lack or seeming lack training. This is an assumption and I thoguht I made it pretty clear that it was. I make this assumption from the conversations and observation and experiances.
If a person can not control their emotions they do not deserve a fire arm. Let alone wield one in public. This response can be applied to your first post.
And while yes, if I'm standing here, and he's standing there, that's pretty easy. However, all I was trying to say is that there are many more variables to take into account that show it's NOT that easy. Easy being once again, what any reasonable person would take from your statement.
Training. How bloody hard is it to spot the man with a sword or 2? This is the mans job. To know what is going on with the surrondings of the space he is hired to protect. A person just doesn't pull a sword out of his hip pocket and yell "LLLLEEERRROOOYYY"
There is room for human error to allow this. However training again help eliminate this.
This isn't the Wild West. And this man should be held accountable. That isn't a bad thing you know. Dictionary time if that word throws you off.
But whatever, I'm not going to waste my time with you trying to flip everything around and the lack of basic comprehension and deduction you seem to show.
I am not flipping nothing around on you.
Do not forget to put me on ignore as well. Thank you.
Reference? I have a hard time trying to believe someone can have that kind of control over their nerve system.
Hooks in ?
Was it a stun gun or a taser? The 2 are different.
As claims that people are immune to tasers. All I have found is here say. Nothing even remotely credible yet. Though I am still looking.
Edit gonna add some references as far as difference and what not goes.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Self-Defense-Stun-Guns-and-Tasers-A-Comparison&id=381942
---STOPPING POWER Stun guns have an effectiveness rating of approximately 86%. Some people who are very aggressive or on drugs can avoid the effect of a stun gun. A taser has an effectiveness rating of 100%. In pre-release tests of 4000 subjects not one person was able to overcome the effects of a taser. A taser has a higher incapacitation rate than a 9 mm handgun without the side effects. Tasers can penetrate 2" of clothing.
---ENERGY TRANSMITTED A stun gun transmits from 80,000-975,000 volts with 7-14 watts of energy. A taser transmits 50,000 volts with 18 watts of energy. It is the wattage that makes the difference here.
---MUSCULAR AND NERVOUS SYSTEM Stun Guns affect the nervous system. Tasers affect the nervous and muscular system.
Don't know how reliable this site is. I saw another one earlier that supported what this site says. I will link it if I can find it again. as well as anything else I come across.
http://www.yourbestselfdefenseproducts.com/stunguns_vs_tasers
The new breed of tasers including the C2 and M18 devices, are different. EMD/ EMC Electro- Muscular-Disruption /Electro-Muscular-Control technology devices don't just interfere with the central nervous system of the attacker they are used on. EMC weapons use a more powerful technology operating in the 18-26 Watt range, to completely over-ride the central nervous system and directly control the skeletal muscles. There is no possibility to fight through the effects of the new tasers, because they create involuntary and completely uncontrollable contractions of the muscles.
I know I shouldn't laugh, But dam that thing was pissed. Anyways, I am getting bored of looking. I am willing to accept the possibility. Just would like a reference if anyone knows of one.
It's true...my dad was a cop for over twenty years...I thought that this kind of stuff was common knowledge by now.
As for the story..the only thing that makes me dubious was that it was at the scientology center...they aren't exactly known for their discretion or good judgement when it comes to dealing with people that they percieve to be a threat
Know what model they were using? I can just pm, I derailed a bit more than I should have earlier with the tazer bits. Edit: Yep you guys / gals are right. I found what I was looking for. It seems I over looked the obvious this morning. Go figure... =P Guess my initial information was a bit more dated.
The tests varied. The data they have is from 2006, it was using ECD models ( the newer stuff). : P
For anyone that might be interrested. Going to look so bad on my bad on my part. For missing the obvious. They are in PDF format.
2nd part. Kind of why I came out of lurk mode and made a comment.