Tuesday night, the parents of 26-year-old Edward L. Becker, Jr. reported that he had been drinking and was acting disorderly, smashing windows out of a truck with a hammer.I understand all the nonsense about "center of mass." But when the preservation of life is a priority shooting the guy in the chest is not necessary to stop him.
Three officers arrived at a home on Commerce Street in Taneytown and saw Becker walking down the street toward them, say police. He had the hammer in his hand and officers shouted for him to drop it and surrender. Police say, however, that Becker continued to walk towards the officers, who were now out of their patrol cars. The officers went down the street and behind their cars, continuing to shout for Becker to drop the hammer and surrender, according to police.
Police say Becker continued to ignore the officers and keep walking. About an arm's length away from an officer, Becker reportedly raised a hammer and the officer fired his pistol. Becker was hit in the upper torso.
Non-lethal means could also have been employed.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
My opinion - they don't fucking care. There are other ways but they always chose to kill mostly. It's become the Merikan way. Fuck them and the gun nutters.
ReplyDeletePolice officers (unlike mere citizens) have the obligation to inflict lethal force, upon anyone who endangers society. The hammer wielding man may have also been in close proximity to the officer in question.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the hammer wielding man in the picture is from Park-chan wook's masterpiece Oldboy. I cannot recommend it enough (although I would urge caution to the faint of heart).
Agreed, it's a great movie.
DeleteMike, police tactics are clear. And "center of mass" is not nonsense. Given that that suspect failed to acknowledge any requests to stop, and kept coming, and was WITHIN ARMS REACH, ready to deliver lethal force, it's really not that unusual. Non-lethal means are used only when the suspect is offering non-lethal resistance. The reason for this is that non-lethal means are not entirely effective; combative suspects or suspects on drugs are often able to resist or fight through the effects of OC or a taser.
ReplyDeleteSee page 9 for Escalating Scale of Force that police follow:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf
It would be unfair to require police to use non-lethal force, and jeopardize themselves, when potentially lethal force is imminent. Nobody can deny the suspect had the means, said hammer could inflict "serious physical injury" if not be lethal; any denying that would be ludicrous. They were certainly close enough for the suspect to strike him, in fact, far too close. One of the "benchmarks" used in range shooting is the distance of 7 yards, or 21 feet. The reason behind "7 yards" is that it is determined to be the very minimum safe distance from an attacker with a knife or other contact weapon. This distance was tested repeated by police Sergeant Dennis Tueller, who determined that even an armed and very-well trained police officer (read as "more than 95 shots every six months", what officers in the NYPD usually get) could be overwhelmed at closer than that distance. The fact that the officer in this case waited so long before firing should be commended, given that the distance was certainly far too close for anyone's comfort.
(Dennis Tueller's original essay and findings):
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm
Tou cannot expect a police officer to accept unnecessary risk simply because you think every suspect, regardless of the imminent dangerous they present to society or the innocent, deserves to live.
The Supreme Court put it best in its decision on Brown v. United States; "The right of a man to stand his ground and defend himself when attacked with a deadly weapon, even to the extent of taking his assailant's life, depends upon whether he reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, and not upon the detached test whether a man of reasonable prudence, so situated, might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than kill him...Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."
The problem with you entire discourse is it doesn't put preservation of life as a high enough priority. Even the life of a hammer-attacker is priceless. He could have been shot in the thigh one step earlier. He could have used a tazer.
DeleteMikeb, he could have been shot in the thigh? In other words, the femoral artery? Why do you have such a hard time understanding that when one person is using lethal force against another, the other one has the right to defend himself? Why do you also base your judgement as to what can be done with guns on what you see in movies?
DeleteGreg is right here. A shot to the thigh is likely to sever the femoral artery, and maybe even cause it to retract into the pelvis where you can't put pressure on it. Progrnosis--slower death than by shots to the chest, but still likely before help arrives.
DeleteAnd this assumes that the bullet doesn't ricochet off the femur, or go through and through and ricochet off the pavement, and then hurt someone else.
You don't shoot someone unless the situation is serious enough to warrant killing them; otherwise, you use a taser, baton, etc. If you find yourself in a situation that has gone so pear shaped that you have to use the gun, then the only responsible thing is to place the shots in the center mass of the threat to minimize the risk of misses and the risk of over-penetration--both things that can harm innocent bystanders.
Well than a shot in the foot, for Christ's sake. Don't you know what my point is?
DeleteYes, we know what your point is. It's foolish and ignorant, but we understand. What I, at least, don't get is why you are so resistant to wising up.
DeleteThe foot is a smaller, faster moving target, and right on the hard pavement which is really prone to ricochets. This is an even worse option for shooting at the guy because, while it doesn't endanger his life as much, it dramatically increases the chances of a ricochet that hits a bystander.
DeleteMike, I get your point about using less lethal force, and that may have been an option here. As I said below, more training for cops might help. Maybe a SOP that says when you confront someone with a weapon other than a gun, one officer draws a gun, the other draws a taser.
The time for less than lethal and less lethal measures is before you are using your gun--it's potential to kill is too great to use it for anything but the gravest threats. Once the discussion turns to shoot to wound vs. shoot center mass (and likely kill), we gun guys are merely trying to point out that the wounding shots are either likely to kill, likely to endanger others, or both.
This is why we keep harping on the "shoot 'im in the leg" aspect of your comment. We do not want to see a push for cops and Concealed Carriers to be told to only "shoot to wound." We don't oppose this because we want to see people killed, but because we don't want the innocent bystanders wounded or killed by shots intended to wound the bad guy.
Mike,
DeleteIn retrospect, I realized that an illustration might be helpful in understanding why we are so quick to point out the likelihood of missing if you shoot at a limb or extremity.
Most police pistols are semi-autos with barrels that are only 4 inches long. Imagine taking a 4 inch ruler, placing it on the floor, and trying to get it to line up perfectly with a given spot on the wall across the room from you.
You can probably get it to line up in this case, but it probably takes a few adjustments, and thus a couple of seconds.
Now, here is how that scales up in the real world:
-You now have to deal with three dimensions instead of two.
-You have to steady everything with your hands rather than the solid floor.
-You are in full fight or flight mode, including adrenaline dump and hand tremors.
-Your target is moving.
-You have only a second or two at most.
-Once on target, you have to keep on target while you pull the trigger--an action that can easily mess up your aim as your grip tightens, and as your trigger finger puts torque on the gun.
-With such a tiny target, you have to take into account the ballistic arc of the bullet--at this range is it going to be slightly above the point of aim or slightly below it.
I told you I understand the "center of mass" thing. I simply think there's not enough emphasis on preserving the life of the bad guys.
DeleteThere's one exceedingly simple step that most of us take every day: Don't be a bad guy.
DeleteMike,
DeleteMy intent was not to be condescending, but to provide reasons to back up our vigorous assertions regarding the feasibility of wounding shots in case you or anyone else reading here didn't understand why we were being so vehement.
Mr Hammerman chose to play a stupid games, and won a stupid prize for his effort......
ReplyDeleteSounds like a win-win....
No police got hurt and Mr. stupid won't get a chance to hurt anyone else.....
Maybe he wasn't a monster or a goblin. Maybe he was a decent guy who was having a real bad day. Life is not cheap.
DeleteI own several hammers, but somehow, I manage to make it through even the worst days without threatening anyone with them.
DeleteMaybe he was a decent guy who was having a bad day and decided that attacking a police officer with a hammer was the way to go about expressing his distress at how bad his day sucked..... fuck him if he had put down the hammer he would still be alive
Delete..
"Fuck him," now that's a compassionate and reasonable response. Do you wonder why we question your fitness to manage firearms responsibly?
DeleteIf you were having a bad day with a hammer breaking out windows and the police told you to put it down would you put down the hammer or would you advance on the police hammer raised? It is a simple question? Can you answer it directly
DeleteIf you can't answer it directly then you should understand our questioning you fitness in questioning the police response....
DeleteWhat I would do has nothing to do with anything. That's an absurd hypothetical. Cops need to stop people without killing them. That's all.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhere was the tazer every officer carries?
ReplyDeleteMikeb, you keep going on about how a hammer isn't really a weapon, but one can be used as a lethal tool. For that purpose, a hammer isn't all that different from a club. And your constant nonsense about "shooting to wound" only shows how you don't understand how guns work and how they're supposed to be used.
ReplyDeleteThat's bullshit, Greg. I understand very well how guns work. I also understand that in many cases like this it's not necessary to kill the guy.
DeleteYour assessment comes from your belief that we're a bunch of trigger-happy would-be murderers. If you took a reasonable attitude toward people with guns, you'd understand.
DeleteAlso bullshit, Greg, is your remark, "you keep going on about how a hammer isn't really a weapon."
DeleteWhy do you have to lie so much, especially when characterizing what I say?
No lie here. Remember all our discussions about how a hammer can be used as a weapon, but we don't regulate hammers? I hit the nail on the head in those several times.
DeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteThree of quick things:
1: Yes, in hindsight, it would have been better to taze the guy if that was an option. It would be great if cops had more time for training and role played situations like this so that they could resort to tazers instead of guns in some of these situations (and use words in some of the situations where they use tasers now). When someone is threatening your life, whether with a gun or a hammer, you go on autopilot based on your training, so if you have trained to go for the tazer when someone has a club or knife, you're more likely to think of it when confronted with the actual madman.
2: Regarding shooting to wound--any shot can kill, Especially any shot to the torso. Also, if you shoot for an arm or leg, you are going to shoot the guy through and through, and God only knows where that bullet is going. Bullets do freaky things, and there's no way of knowing which direction it may ricochet off in--possibly into a kids bedroom.
3: Regardless of number 1, while incapacitating the guy would have been a happier outcome, he was advancing on a cop and raised the hammer when within arm's reach. The cop waited far longer than he had to (usually allowed to shoot if the threat is within 21 feet). This unfortunate soul's blood is on his own head. He threatened deadly force, and had it used back on him--this is a just, if sad, outcome. Using the tazer would have been tempering justice with mercy--a worthy goal to encourage, but not something that is always possible.
Well said.
DeleteHow about the hammer of Thor? Medieval maces? A strong man wielding a hammer has the force to split rock.
ReplyDeleteA hammer blow to the head is very likely ten to twenty times more lethal than a bullet. Probably a lot more likely to inflict death. A hammer could easily be thrown with reasonable accuracy like a tomahawk. Resulting injury would be fatal or debilitating depending upon where it hit.
Mike, you're not thinking. A hammer versus a bullet. Which would you rather have flying towards you? Obviously you never use a hammer for anything at all.
I have always hated guns. Guns are for pussies. Back when I was a gangster, I carried a small, ball-peen hammer in my car just in case I encountered trouble. The handle had been burned in a fire. I told myself if I really did get into a fight, it might break before it actually killed my opponent. I could always tell the cops I didn't remember how it got right under the right side of the driver's seat. After a couple of years, I gave up on the whole idea of violent conflict resulting in death.
I'm glad you're not a gangster any more.
DeleteHappy New Year Mikey. Keep on fighting the good fight and having a lot of fun at the same time. Blessings to your wife and family.
DeleteThanks, FJ, same to you.
DeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteAll these posts are politely saying you don't have a fucking clue.
Mikeb wrote, "But when the preservation of life is a priority shooting the guy in the chest is not necessary to stop him."
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the responding officers have a right to defend themselves as citizens. If a man raises a hammer and is less than 7 feet away, he can lunge and strike your skull is less than 1 second ... and a single hammer blow to your skull could cause instant death. So this situation was extremely dangerous.
Second, an adult male is physically capable of functioning for at least 10 seconds after a perfect shot destroys his heart. A man with a hammer could easily kill someone in 1 second much less 10 seconds.
As far as I am concerned, the officer is lucky the man with the hammer didn't kill him.