Everytime the cops save lives by stopping a raving lunatic with a weapon, yammering critics, far from danger, are quick to flap their asinine gums:
After several people called 911, Washington State Patrol troopers and Pierce County deputies arrived at the scene and ordered Carter to put down the rifle. He refused, said sheriff’s spokesman Ed Troyer. When Carter leveled the rifle at the deputies, three officers fired simultaneously, killing the man, Troyer said.To the sheriffs and troopers: thank you for stalking this drunk rifle-wielding raver, and kudos on your marksmanship.Family members said non-lethal force should have been used. “They could have wounded him or shot him in the leg or lowered their aim,” said Colleen Carter, Bill Carter’s ex-wife. “It’s almost like they were stalking him.”
"Deputies followed Carter for about a mile while ordering him to put down his weapon," so he had every chance in the world.
And to bone-from-the-neck-up Colleen: shooting at the legs means either wounding a still-armed nutcase, or missing a smaller target and sending a round down the road.
Posted by Brian Crouch at April 29, 2005 12:05 PM | Email This1) The "critic" was not a person at a distance, but a loved one and former wife.
2) You could have al ittle sympathy for what is a tragic situation all around.
Posted by: JDB on April 29, 2005 12:10 PMSo, officers are called to the scene, they see a man with a rifle, pointing it at them. At what point do they stop, conduct a risk analysis, and decide to pull out the gun loaded with rubber bullets, or the one with real bullets?
The police did the right thing. Oversight is good, but the questioning of an obvious case like this is a bit rediculous.
Posted by: Jason on April 29, 2005 12:41 PMHow come, do you suppose?
I guess we should be thankful that we have these guys that can deal with all kinds of human refuse, can be a "ittle" sympathetic, and still be vilified by liberals.
Takes all kinds.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 29, 2005 12:42 PMOfficers are trained to aim for the largest part of the body when engaging. "Center Mass" for the simple fact that there is less of a chance for a miss...bullets go a looong ways! When in a high stress situtation that training takes over, as it should. Center Mass is where the major organs of the body are so taking a hit there it's likely that the subject will suffer a fatal wound...oh well...like the man said...he should not have pointed the rifle at the officers. That was his choice. Now he deals with the consequences..whether in heaven or hell......
Posted by: BlueKnight on April 29, 2005 01:20 PMWhy don't you have a little sympathy for the police that voluntarily follow a nut with a gun rather than run away? The cops run into dangerous situations deserve all the sympathy and respect, not the nuts that cause the situation that endanger all of us.
Posted by: Fred on April 29, 2005 01:23 PMLaw Enforcement Officers are taught to shoot for the center-of-mass (chest area) when lethal force is required. I can't think of a situation where lethal force is called for more than someone levelling a rifle at you.
Few people are good enough marksmen under the stress of a lethal threat to consistently hit a target as small as a leg, and some trouser styles are baggy enough that it is difficult to determine where the leg actually is whithin it. The chest is a much larger target and easier to hit.
Plus, a shot or two to the chest area is most likely to effectively stop a lethal threat since most of the large vital organs are contained within.
What if they shot him with rubber bullets and he was only stunned enough that he still managed to get a shot or two off, killing an Officer or an innocent bystander? And with a rifle, a stray shot might penetrate a barricade such as the wall of a home and kill someone inside... perhaps even a child.
A rifle projectile might also completely penetrate the Officer completely and keep on going, possibly killing or wounding a bystander a good distance away.
As MikeF said, shooting to wound is just a myth. There is no guarantee that it would stop the threat, and in fact, a wounded criminal could get several shots off before they were ever stopped. The point of the Officer making a center-of-mass shot is to stop the threat as quickly as possible, thereby protecting themselves and the general public from any harm.
Any dissenters have been watching way too much TV and movies, and worse yet, beleiving that what they see in those "entertainment" media is fact.
Any time a life has to be taken, it is tragic. But Mr. Carter brought this on himself by raising the rifle. The Officers acted correctly and had no other real choice. They put their own lives on the line, and by doing so saved lives. It could have been your life... or your child's life. They should be shown a little appreciation and respect (and thanks!) for doing so.
Posted by: Clint on April 29, 2005 01:24 PMRe-read what I wrote. I said one should have sympathy for "what is a tragic situation all around." There might be a few police officers who like shooting people, but the ones I know hate the idea of using a weapon, especially if it takes a life (it should be noted that most that I know have never had to use their sidearm in anger). I don't think any of these officers are happy with the outcome.
Police should have access to non-leathal methods, but when you have a nut with a gun, I expect the police to use whatever means they feel are best. However, that doesn't mean that this is not a tragedy. "No man is an island, seperate unto himself..."
The suspect was and should be held RESPONSIBLE for his actions, wielding a weapon and not complying with Law Enforcements demands.
Sometimes when people make BAD decisions they face the consequences of those BAD decisions. As it should be.
Law Enforcement also has RESPONSIBILITY in this case and that is to protect the general welfare of the public. In this case, after failed negotiations, Law Enforcement decided to do what is good for the many, us (you and I).
What if Law Enforcement allowed the situation to continue and an innocent civilian was hurt? Law Enforcement would have been derelict in their duty and most assuredly sued. Thank God that they were not. This also sends a message to those who would do similar that there are grave consequences to your actions.
GOD BLESS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS!
Posted by: M Leinweber on April 29, 2005 01:39 PMI also agree with JDB's first point. Taking the words of an obviously emotional witness as if it were a rational, coherent indictment of law enforcement requires a pretty big stretch. If she files a lawsuit, then it's open season, but until then, I wouldn't be so quick to flap your gums.
Posted by: ChrisW on April 29, 2005 01:54 PMPolice work can be extrememly ugly. They are also trained to use as many bullets as it take to keep the guy from firing back and surprisingly that is often more than one.
Posted by: CandrewB on April 29, 2005 01:54 PMNo police officer should ever being his sidearm in "anger", they should be using it in the line of duty. We pay and train our police to seperate out emotion from the jobs and to act objectively. That's what they did in this case. Of course this Mr. Carter's loved ones are going to be sad and upset, but directing that at the police is misguided. They pulled the trigger, but it was Mr. Carter himself who set things in motion and ultimately drove them to their tragic results.
Posted by: Jason on April 29, 2005 02:02 PMI always shoot for the head. NOBODY has a chance to shoot back when they have a head shot, no matter what caliber you shoot 'em with! Sure, it's a harder target, but then, I'm a VERY good shot. This is why I'll never be a police officer. This is also why I don't carry a gun. That's my definition of a "disabling shot" - not very Hollywood, is it?
"One Shot, One Kill"
I have sympathy for the widow, just not for the dumb sod getting drunk and pointing guns at police. Everybody's so wrapped up in the victim mentality, they don't stop to realize CONSEQUENCES. As the old saying goes, "Sometimes your only purpose in life is to serve as a bad example to others."!
'Nuff said.
Posted by: igor on April 29, 2005 02:04 PMPolice should be held to the same standard as foreign policy- let's just try and reason with every lunatic pointing the business end of a gun our direction and see why they are angry at us.
Posted by: Andy on April 29, 2005 02:12 PMIt's consistent. In this case, the families, not just Colleen, were saying the police shouldn't have killed him.
Posted by: Jojo the monkey boy on April 29, 2005 02:22 PMYou are correct, I misspoke. Thank you for the correction.
Posted by: JDB on April 29, 2005 03:18 PMNow, as to non-lethal munitions, most of the ones discussed here - rubber bullets, bean bags, tasers - requires the operator to be located within 100 yards or less of the perp. Think about the physics involved in firing a bean bag at a high rate of speed into a target with any reasonable amount of accuracy.... And then think about what happens when you shoot at an armed drunk and fail to subdue him.
Posted by: Aaron on April 29, 2005 09:46 PMYep. You're right - adrenaline and a pistol make for LOUSY aim. You're mostly correct about the accuracy statement, too. Who said I would be using a pistol?
No, I'm not bragging about being a good shot, it's just that I'm a reflex shooter, which got me in major trouble with the Rangemaster when I had to qualify. They made sure I was under duress, I only got 16 out of 25 in the target. But, all of them were head shots. Still and all, I prefer to reach out and touch someone with a rifle...
See, the point I was (badly, it seems) trying to make is that it's all about attitude. I have no intention of the bad guy EVER getting back up - when the Military says "neutralize" the enemy, they really mean "kill". Since my judgement is therefore suspect (read: it sucks), I'm never going to carry a gun unless it's a DIRE situation! Heh, you can be a good shot and STILL be a walking disaster area! Judgement is the MAJOR factor when carrying a weapon. I'll never be a Cop for just that very reason - I have a very bad tendency to be judge, jury, and executioner. Ya gotta know your limits, okay?
'Nuff said.
Posted by: igor on May 1, 2005 07:46 AM