Hacker News Reader

Comment by trhway | Hacker News Reader

Even if it was so, one shot would do it, may be only wounding. Yet he had the right to kill, he used it like others. Shooting multiple times or chock holding to make sure that target is dead is execution . They could have shot Garner in leg, instead they used the right to kill.

The killings at will are part of the Dominant Force law enforcement framework. In short - instilling fear as anything can happen to you, your live and death are at their will. That fear is supposedly makes you behave "good". It is a violation of civil rights of general population the same way like sniper rifle prominently targeting demonstrators (another piece of the Dominant Force) is a violation of the demonstrators' 1st Amendment rights (by generating chilling effect)

View on HN

The officer was equipped with a P229 Sig Sauer, which loads with either 9mm or .40S&W rounds. I've been unable to find whether the autopsy indicated 9mm or .40 rounds, but if it's 9mm, it's most certainly not true that a single round would stop someone who's charging towards you and is flooded with more adrenaline than they've ever experienced in their life. This phenomenon has been documented time and time again, as counterintuitive as it sounds.

In fatal stabbing incidents, people often comment about how they had no clue how bad the stab really was. That's because adrenaline disables your normal systems which tell your brain that anything is wrong.

Officers aren't trained for Hollywood-style precision shots to the leg. They are trained never to point their guns at anything they're not willing to kill, and if you are forced into a situation where you must use your weapon, to aim for center of mass and continue shooting until the threat is neutralized.

If we disagree with officer training policy, we should try to change it. But we can't go back now and say they shouldn't have followed their training.

pure BS. That fat kid could have been stopped by a punch, let a one shot from 9mm. And that even if he was attacking the officer, which he wasn't to start with.

Again, there wasn't need to kill, yet there was a right to do it - kid stupidly resisted harassment and even tried to move away ("run" in official language as he couldn't really run due to the fat) - and officer executed his right as they usually do to send the message that even minor disobedience will be severely punished.

Police are trained only to shoot to kill because pulling the trigger needs to be a big event. If you think that "shoot to wound" is an option, then of course you're going to pull the trigger more often. You'll become more comfortable shooting people and, presumably, you'll also end up killing people more often.

Other reasons for "shoot to kill" relate to effectiveness: in the energy of the situation if you aim to wound you may either kill by accident, or not hit at all.

> Police are trained only to shoot to kill

As I understand it, police are generally taught specifically to shoot center of mass because aiming there is the most effective way to reliably and quickly end the immediate physical threat. This also ends up pretty close to maximizing the killing effectiveness of shots, but is not the primary focus.

The reason is that you are more likely to hit the target rather than what some propose, that they should just wound him in the kneecap, an almost impossibility.

He charged the officer and was shot once. Then he charged again and was shot again. Then, he came within 10 feet to tackle the officer and that was when he was killed. This was not 10 (or so) consecutive shots. If the first shots didn't stop him, why would you believe the second grouping would? Or the next?

What was Brown's intent once he reached the officer?

Brown didn't attack or charged the officer. That's a lie by the officer. Ever watched "Chicago"? "They both reached for the gun".

Prosecutor, just accidentally, a clerical error mind you, withheld witness' transcripts from the grand jury in the Brown's case.

We all know what happened - Brown was executed for angering the officer, for not demonstrating full submission from the moment the officer started harassing Brown for jaywalking, ie. instead of just writing the ticket for jaywalking, the officer went on power trip ...

I forgot the count but it was between 10 and 20 eyewitness accounts and direct interviews by the grand jury state Brown charged at the officer. It's obvious you didn't look at any of the documents or read any of the online articles or television by news organizations who did read the documents and state the same thing.

One of the biggest lies told, in all this, is that Brown had his hands up and said, "Don't shoot!". Never happened but I'm betting you believe that, too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com