| The definition of 'reasonably' may outweigh 50 shots |
| Michael Daly: After all the witnesses are interviewed and all the evidence is analyzed and all the questions are answered as to how the police came to fire 50 shots at three unarmed men, the case will turn on one subjective word. |
Nonsense. The men were not unarmed, but were in fact using a 3000 pound vehicle as a deadly weapon. ANY reasonable person would agree that the police were justified in protecting themselves and doing their job. The thing that has, and always WILL jerk the chain of bleeding hearts is the number of bullets fired, and that's because years of Hollywood fairytales have led the clueless to believe that all one need to is fire one shot and the situation is well in hand.
Nonsense. Police are taught to fire until the threat is over, and there isn't a 9 mm handgun in the world that can guarantee that. Forget the rubbish you hear about shot placement, because in the heat of battle shot placement goes to hell and it's every man for himself. You shoot then shoot some more. You shoot until slidelock then reload if the threat continues, because the chances are you are not going to be landing squarely anytime soon. You can get lucky and drop an assailant with one to the brainpan, but NEVER count on it.
You prepare and train to shoot until the object of your disaffection is without the ability to cause you harm.
The cops in Queens did what they were trained to do. They did the right thing. If you reasonably believe shooting is necessary, you don't stop to admire your handiwork. If they loons are going to continue to browbeat the police they might as well ask them to go about their duties unarmed, because it can take many a bullet to put down the mad dogs they must face.
No comments:
Post a Comment