Comments

1
It seems really dumb to leave this line out of your little summary:

"A handgun was later recovered from the man's waistband, police said."
2
Well, of course he neglected that, @1. Why, that would make it a justifiable shooting. God forbid anyone at The Stranger should ever portray cops as anything other than murderous thugs.
3
@1, 2 - Seems to me the perception of the uncooperative, evasive man reaching for what appeared to be a gun makes it justifiable. The cops can't be held accountable for the unknown, and their perception of the situation led them to reasonably believe there was a gun. Their perception later turned out to be right, but future discoveries have no bearing on the present. If he were reaching for a wallet, he picked a bad place to keep his wallet and a very bad time to reach for it.

Urban survival tip: when the police are trying to detain you, don't reach into your waistband for any reason, even if you don't actually have a gun in there.
4
Yes, of course you're right, @3. It was already justifiable. Knowing there really was a gun makes it even more justified, though.
5
@ 1, where are you getting that? It's not at the article Charles linked.
6
@5 By going to seattletimes.com and clicking on the 4th article from the top, which is the Pioneer Square Cop Shooting one:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
7
Got it. Thanks.
8
@4 - You sound like the poker commentators who say a player was right to call with seven-two off-suit because his full house turned up. That is a stupid, stupid play, even if it pays off. As for the cops, they made the right call, even if there hadn't been a gun. All the gun does is provide some good PR for the SPD, which it desperately needs.
9
Can't fault the cops on this one and I hatez them. But this was a good call and I probably would have done the same.
10
@9. I also hate the police... Very much so.... but I think that this was all justifiable. I do, however, wonder why people are not getting shot in the legs? I don't know the protocol, but wouldn't that be a better way to handle these situations? Or are these cops just bad shots?
11
@10: If you shoot for the legs, there's a good chance you'll miss. And a wound to the thigh can be just as lethal as a wound to the torso. Bottom line is, as several more gun/police-savvy commenters have said before, that you aim for the center of mass when shooting to incapacitate.
12
@10 - A gun shot in the leg easily can be fatal. The femoral artery is there. If that's blown away, you're dead in under five minutes.
13
@10 Police use their weapon to end a threat to their lives. As had been pointed out here ad nauseum by 5280 and others, they shoot for center mass. They shoot for center mass, because it is the largest mass of body to hit, especially under life threatening circumstances. I gurantee if you had a gun in your hands, and someone started to pull a gun or knife on you, that due to involuntary muscle reactions, you'd tense up, start to shake, and probably shoot the ground before shooting at and missing the armed threat against you.

Additionally, (and much more importantly), shooting for center mass has a higher likelihood of ending the threat (dropping the motherfucker in his tracks), or at least having the bullet shock his nervous system enough for the officer to gain control of the situation. Center mass has the heart and spine, and you are done if hit in either spot.

Bottom line. If Police shot at your leg and hit you, would you still be able to draw a weapon and possibly return fire? Why should police allow for that possibility? Would that not endanger not only the officer, but also the surrounding general public?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.