And what if it had been a car bomb? Shooting out the tires wouldn’t do jack. You shoot the perp. Again, if you don’t want to be shot, don’t do something like this in that neighborhood.
It would reduce the mobility of the car, thus reducing the chance it gets to the intended target.
The shots that were fired were presumably intended to cause the car to stop. Unfortunately, they had no effect.
And shooting the perp eliminates the chance it gets to the intended target.
Hitting him/her probably does.
Well, yes. I did say “shooting the perp,” which would necessarily mean hitting him, not “shooting at” him.
Seriously, folks, what does anyone expect? Someone starts using a car as a weapon in this manner almost on top of the White House. It boggles my mind that anyone could think the perp’s not going to get shot under these circumstances. Maybe it would be better if we took away the cops’ guns and have them just think bad thoughts about the perp, but I’m not prepared to try that and see.
FTR, I’m not claiming that deadly force was unjustified here. But when a non-deadly action would have likely been more effective than what was actually done, it probably should have been considered.
That’s just more armchair quarterbacking. Possibly it would have been considered had the cops had the luxury of having enough time to consider. They had to act on the spot in the way they saw fit and were trained.
I guess what I’m asking is why the training doesn’t include such low-risk tactics as flattening tires.
Because if you’re worried about someone setting off a bomb or running you over you don’t have time to flatten the tires - a tactic which doesn’t guarantee that you neutralize a threat. While it obviously works in some situations it’s not something you can use everywhere or in every scenario.
It just makes no sense to me that firing deadly projectiles at a target that’s less than a quarter the size of a human, and that even if hit would only have a minor effect on the car, is in any way a “low-risk” tactic.
It just seems to me that if someone has made a justifiable decision to use deadly force, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to try to shoot out tires, shoot a gun out of someone’s hand, fire warning shots, etc.
How long does it take to fire a single shot at a tire? (And remember, we’re talking about the point during this incident where the woman was stopped, then sped away.)
Obviously not. Nor does shooting at the driver guarantee that the threat is neutralized - as this case clearly demonstrated.
Certainly not. I’m merely suggesting it’s occasionally useful, and that this incident could have been such an occasion.
Surely it’s of lower risk to bystanders (not to mention the baby in the back seat) to fire downward at a range of inches, than the shots that were fired horizontally (and apparently not all that accurately) at the fleeing car.
It’s not one to the exclusion of the other. Taking out a couple of tires does not prevent shooting at the driver - and may make hitting her more likely, since her speed and maneuverability will be lower.
How long does it take to detonate a friggin’ car bomb if you’re alive?
Look, I’m sorry the woman died, I’m sorry she had mental-health issues, but if you’re going to go to that neighborhood and start acting like that, then you are in all likelihood going to get shot, and I have zero problem with that.
The police should not have the power to execute people because they might, theoretically, have a car bomb. What’s next, they shoot Siam Sam in the face as he’s walking down the street because he might be carrying a concealed firearm?
Even in Iraq, a war zone, the rules of engagement at checkpoints required that you didn’t jump straight to killing the driver.
If you seriously think that is a comparable situation to the lady trying to run over Secret Service and police last week, then there’s not much more I can say.
Can I just ask, have you done a fair amount of shooting?
I don’t have much problem with it either. I am concerned that the initial response was both ineffective and of some evident danger to bystanders.
Only with various pistols - I have probably fired fewer than 1000 rounds with all the rifles I’ve ever handled.
Would you ever shoot with an intent to wound (but not kill)?
Though unusual, I can certainly imagine circumstances where this would make sense. For example, the one shown in this video (skip to 1:25): sniper shoots gun out of the hand of dangerous-seeming suspect.