Local police shooting..

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,312
1,039
113
#1

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
6,623
1,381
113
#2
Sad, but it sounds like either an intentional, or accidental "suicide by cop" story...

I knew a guy that did something like that about 34 or so years ago...he went to the church I was a member of.... nice guy, but a little "off" at times... went up to a local hospital and started making threats, waving a gun around... waited until the police had him "cornered", then pointed the gun at them. They had to shoot, and he died.

Sad, but it happens quite often.
 
Y

Yahweh_is_gracious

Guest
#3
Glad hornetguy said it. I was going to say "suicide by cop". It happens all too frequently. My brother (half brother) exited this world that way. In those situations, I really feel bad for the cops who are backed into a situation where they have to respond with deadly force.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,312
1,039
113
#4
Sad when these things happen . Ive met the office involved . He seems like a reasonable guy. Some people are angry at the officer but but it probably was suicide by cop.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
6,623
1,381
113
#5
Yes... and I've read testimonies from officers, and friends of officers who say that this kind of thing can be just really, really difficult, emotionally for the officer that is forced to do that.

It's bad enough to have to take a life, when the perp "deserved" it, so to speak... but to have to kill someone that is only wanting someone else to "take them out" is reported to be very troubling.

Everyone involved needs our prayers...
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,312
1,039
113
#6
His name is been released. The man's name was Chris McClure. His Facebook page is still up. You can tell just by reading some of his Facebook posts that he wasn't all there in the head
 

notbythesword

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2015
305
5
0
#7
When I was taking my CCFL, we were quite bluntly told to never shoot in the leg or anywhere else to wound an individual. Sounds crazy I know. This was because it would be possible for a prosecutor to assert that deadly force was not actually warranted. It would leave many convictions of oneself open for trial.

I’ve actually talked with officers about this and they told me the same thing. If they have to fire a round, they always shoot to kill, never to wound. I believe that this “liability” factor has led to the deaths of many people, who may have been able to have been stopped with being shot to cripple not kill.

The political correctness of society, is making it easier to sue based upon whether deadly force was actually warranted. This has led to the lethal standard of today’s society. It is rare that when a man has a knife or bar and slowly walks towards officers and isn’t responding to commands, that you see him/her only get a round though the knee. Usually it ends in a fury of bullets through the upper torso.

I believe in the right for all men and women to be able to protect themselves when dealing with a hostile individual. This includes neutralizing the threat by any means. I also believe in their right to use a firearm for less than lethal neutralization purposes too. I don’t believe they should get prosecuted simply because they didn’t use deadly force to kill.

If we didn’t always have to classify the use of a firearm as always using deadly force, instead the classification was determined after the fact and based on what happened, I think that many more officers and civilians may be more open to shooting to wound. Especially when it is obviously a case of drugs or mental illness.

Anyways, I hope that no one has to ever be put in a situation where those things need to be contemplated.
 
S

Susanna

Guest
#8
A person shot in the leg can still get you to be meeting with the undertaker later on that day. You get one chance to take him out. You don't wanna waste that chance by shooting him in the leg.
 

notbythesword

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2015
305
5
0
#9
A person shot in the leg can still get you to be meeting with the undertaker later on that day. You get one chance to take him out. You don't wanna waste that chance by shooting him in the leg.
I guess for me it would just depend on the situation. For instance, how close was the person, what weapon do they have, are they a young confused individual, are they possibly on drugs…etc. I imagine law enforcement can have some difficult times and decisions. I give them props.
 

Tommy379

Notorious Member
Jan 12, 2016
7,589
1,151
113
#10
When I was taking my CCFL, we were quite bluntly told to never shoot in the leg or anywhere else to wound an individual. Sounds crazy I know. This was because it would be possible for a prosecutor to assert that deadly force was not actually warranted. It would leave many convictions of oneself open for trial.

I’ve actually talked with officers about this and they told me the same thing. If they have to fire a round, they always shoot to kill, never to wound. I believe that this “liability” factor has led to the deaths of many people, who may have been able to have been stopped with being shot to cripple not kill.

The political correctness of society, is making it easier to sue based upon whether deadly force was actually warranted. This has led to the lethal standard of today’s society. It is rare that when a man has a knife or bar and slowly walks towards officers and isn’t responding to commands, that you see him/her only get a round though the knee. Usually it ends in a fury of bullets through the upper torso.

I believe in the right for all men and women to be able to protect themselves when dealing with a hostile individual. This includes neutralizing the threat by any means. I also believe in their right to use a firearm for less than lethal neutralization purposes too. I don’t believe they should get prosecuted simply because they didn’t use deadly force to kill.

If we didn’t always have to classify the use of a firearm as always using deadly force, instead the classification was determined after the fact and based on what happened, I think that many more officers and civilians may be more open to shooting to wound. Especially when it is obviously a case of drugs or mental illness.

Anyways, I hope that no one has to ever be put in a situation where those things need to be contemplated.
That's a new one. I went to a police Academy 16 years ago and have gone through defensive tactics in service every year, firearms certification twice a year, including use of force, and I have never in all these years been instructed to "shoot to kill." I have been trained to aim at the largest part of the body I can see while using a firearm. I've been instructed to use necessary force to stop the threat, but I have never been instructed that the objective of using deadly force was to kill the suspect.
Maybe Virginia law enforcement training and doctrine is different than anywhere else.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
6,623
1,381
113
#11
That's a new one. I went to a police Academy 16 years ago and have gone through defensive tactics in service every year, firearms certification twice a year, including use of force, and I have never in all these years been instructed to "shoot to kill." I have been trained to aim at the largest part of the body I can see while using a firearm. I've been instructed to use necessary force to stop the threat, but I have never been instructed that the objective of using deadly force was to kill the suspect.
Maybe Virginia law enforcement training and doctrine is different than anywhere else.
Nope, you are correct. Police officers are taught to shoot center-mass, to stop the threat.

People that say "just shoot them in the leg" have obviously never shot a handgun at a target... especially one that is moving.

And, as stated earlier, if you purposely shoot them in the leg/arm, because you don't think it's necessary to stop/kill them, then you shouldn't be using lethal force in the first place. That can quickly up the charge against you to murder.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,312
1,039
113
#12
I do kind of wonder if maybe tasing could have been an option
 

notbythesword

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2015
305
5
0
#13
That's a new one. I went to a police Academy 16 years ago and have gone through defensive tactics in service every year, firearms certification twice a year, including use of force, and I have never in all these years been instructed to "shoot to kill." I have been trained to aim at the largest part of the body I can see while using a firearm. I've been instructed to use necessary force to stop the threat, but I have never been instructed that the objective of using deadly force was to kill the suspect.
Maybe Virginia law enforcement training and doctrine is different than anywhere else.
A lot has changed in 16 years. Especially in the way today's officers are viewed and treated.
 

notbythesword

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2015
305
5
0
#14
Nope, you are correct. Police officers are taught to shoot center-mass, to stop the threat.

People that say "just shoot them in the leg" have obviously never shot a handgun at a target... especially one that is moving.

And, as stated earlier, if you purposely shoot them in the leg/arm, because you don't think it's necessary to stop/kill them, then you shouldn't be using lethal force in the first place. That can quickly up the charge against you to murder.
I’ve used firearms my whole life. Shooting someone in the leg would not always be feasible, nor effective in every case. However, I do view it as an option in certain situations…I’ll be it a rarity.
 

notbythesword

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2015
305
5
0
#16
Lol. Okay then. If you don't think that shooting in center mass is shooting lethally then that's your belief. I personally am not of that opinion.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,312
1,039
113
#17
You always aim Center Mass. Especially when there is a risk of missing and hitting innocent bystanders. This happened in downtown Fulton, right on the main strip where are all the businesses are.
 

notbythesword

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2015
305
5
0
#18
You always aim Center Mass. Especially when there is a risk of missing and hitting innocent bystanders. This happened in downtown Fulton, right on the main strip where are all the businesses are.
Yes, in a crazy situation like that, you will shoot center mass almost instinctively. You do always want to make sure that you are aware of your backdrop, but honestly events can unfold rather quickly. Most 9mm’s will pass clean through a body and continue some distance down range though. It depends heavily on the type of ammunition used in the firearm.
 

Tommy379

Notorious Member
Jan 12, 2016
7,589
1,151
113
#19
Lol. Okay then. If you don't think that shooting in center mass is shooting lethally then that's your belief. I personally am not of that opinion.
You are not comprehending what I am writing. I don't know where this "center mass" terminology comes from. Never was used where I come from. If you read what I wrote, we are trained to aim at the largest part of the suspects body we can see. That may be just their arm holding a gun, reaching around a corner, shooting at you. I reckon at that point, "center mass" could be a hand, forearm, or bicep. The largest part of the body seen could be any part. Police do not deploy deadly force with the objective of killing anyone, the objective is to stop the threat. It's called "deadly force" because it has a high likelihood of causing death, not that it's the desired result.

Not all people shot in the chest die, in fact with modern trauma centers poping up everywhere, most people don't.

You were posting some weird nonsense about it being legally better to shoot someone to kill them than shoot them in the leg. It's not even a valid point. You apply force to stop the threat. Please do yourself a favor, if you ever have to shoot someone, get a lawyer before you make any statements.
 

Tommy379

Notorious Member
Jan 12, 2016
7,589
1,151
113
#20
You always aim Center Mass. Especially when there is a risk of missing and hitting innocent bystanders. This happened in downtown Fulton, right on the main strip where are all the businesses are.
You are responsible for every round of ammunition you discharge.