Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Weymouth Mass Teen Shot

A knife-wielding teenager, perhaps attempting suicide by cop was wounded in the shoulder. At first I thought finally the cops handled one of these situations right, one shot fired in a non-lethal area of the body, but then came the explanation.

At a press conference Monday, [Capt. Joseph] Comperchio said the officer followed standard training to aim for a suspect’s chest when threatened with a weapon.

“From every indication, this was a justified shooting, and he did everything he was supposed to do,” Comperchio said. “(The teen) was threatening a police officer with this large kitchen knife.”
That's Captain Comperchio's official take on it, but I'd like to think the shooting officer purposely aimed to the right of center. What supports my theory is that only one shot was fired. In other cases where several cops empty their guns on a guy because he "lunged" at them, I have my suspicions. But in this case, I like the way it happened.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. Believe what you want, but it's far more likely that he just missed.

    people have a tendancy to shoot what they are looking at. In this case, at the knife, explaining how the wound was on the arm.

    In the end, it doesn't matter. There's a good guy going home without extra holes in him.

  2. Sometimes one shot works. If he was shot in shoulder and immediately dropped the knife & stopped advancing then he's no longer a threat.

    You shoot to stop the threat. If one shot to the shoulder stops the threat then good.

  3. The basic training is to shoot until the threat is stopped. In many tense situations, multiple shots are fired in an extremely short timespan...faster than it would take for a person to fall down...better for their safety than shoot...check to see what happens...shoot...check to see what happens.

    In this case, it's likely the knife holder either immediately dropped the knife, sat down, or some other submissive action that removed the threat.

  4. Yeah, this is the exception which proves the rule. The rule being cops are usually violent power-abusers if given the chance.

  5. The rule being cops are usually violent power-abusers if given the chance.

    Any proof to that or are you just painting with a broad brush & spouting BS just like your 10% crap?

  6. "The rule being cops are usually violent power-abusers if given the chance."

    If that's true, why in the world should we allow them to be armed? Or more to the point, why should be disarmed and they get the monopoly on force? Doesn't that kind of thing bother you?

  7. Cops should be screened better and trained better, that's all.

    Come to think of it, the same goes for gun owners in general.

  8. RE: Cops--
    Better screening and better training costs more money and takes more time. That means higher taxes to pay their salaries and trainers' salaries, plus range and ammunition. In addition, less time on the streets doing the job they were hired to do, and more candidates screened out because they aren't up to snuff. That in turn will lead to less police on the job, which left unchanged will lead to overworked and burned out police. The simplest solution that .gov can make is to reduce qualifications, which leads us back to our current situatuon.

    No easy answers there.

    RE: Gun Owners--
    Rights do not require .gov approval.