- Thread starter Meemselle
- Start date
Police shoot thief in Sosua
- Status
There is so much wrong with the way this unfolded based on the info available.*
1) Shooting at a fleeing property crime suspect who isn't an immediate threat to anyone
2) Very few cops here have the training & practice to be competent shooting at anything
3) Discharging a handgun in a high density area of a tourist town (see #2)
4) I bet more than one shot was sent down range. Wonder where those bullets ended up - obviously not in the suspect.*
More details needed, but is sounds like a clusterpuk from start to finish.
1) Shooting at a fleeing property crime suspect who isn't an immediate threat to anyone
2) Very few cops here have the training & practice to be competent shooting at anything
3) Discharging a handgun in a high density area of a tourist town (see #2)
4) I bet more than one shot was sent down range. Wonder where those bullets ended up - obviously not in the suspect.*
More details needed, but is sounds like a clusterpuk from start to finish.
Of course! A couple more posts, we'll have him tap dancing while a squad of police unload their weapons on him. He miraculously survives with a graze on his left butt cheek. No sense letting the truth get in the way of a good story.
I am on it. Last night, I was a-drankin' with my witness, but I was too focussed on tossing back Chivas to a.) celebrate finishing one of my articles for the journal I write for that had been a week overdue; b.) decompressing from the presidential debate; and c.) rejoicing that the ALDS game at Fenway had been rained out. These 3 emotional events impeded my ability to get the facts, ma'am, just the facts. I shall attempt to do better tonight.
A fleeing criminal is always a threat as they often use escalating violence, and if we stop pursuing fleeing suspects then there will be no more stopping crime.
I agree shooting in public is dangerous but I would rather the police shoot first than the criminals.
Seems the whole world has gone berserk - maybe the DR isn't the craziest place on the planet - I think two people competing for the highest position in the world make that obvious.
In civilized societies we do not shoot people in the *back who are fleeing an alleged property crime. Death is not the punishment for robbery except in the DR in this example. The real danger here is that the cops *could shoot you or even worse, accidentally hit me. In the DR a posterior wound is evidence the guy was running away. As bad as police shootings are in the US it's much worse in the DR.
If you can't do the time underground don't do the crime above it.
Sent from my HTC One A9 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC One A9 using Tapatalk
So what I think you are saying is that only a dead criminal guarantees that the individual will never commit another crime. Fair enough I suppose, can't really argue that conclusion.
The best way to draw fire is to initiate fire. From a public safety perspective, I would think that the last thing you would want a fleeing suspect to be doing is turning around every so often to send a poorly aimed round in some general direction. A suspect armed with a gun certainly requires extra consideration. Moving targets can be difficult to hit with a handgun. I'm pretty sure that most police here have little if any training with moving targets except for the elite forces of the anti-terror group.*
It's a societal thing. I can guess where you were raised. Where I come from, we are not allowed to shoot the burglar climbing out the bedroom window with the TV and jewelry. It's just not allowed just like we cannot fire down the street after the guy who just stole the family car. Until recently it was really difficult for Canadians to justify shooting an intruder in our homes unless our backs were literally pressed against the furthermost wall and the similarly armed intruder was actively advancing towards us. The Canadian courts made the determination if that level of force was justified, not the written law. To this day, even with the changes to the criminal code that codify the concept of self defense, Canadians must still withdraw if that is a reasonable option at the time. We have no "stand your ground" option; So obviously we view this issue differently than those with different options.
I see both sides of the coin and can appreciate each point of view. However, shooting a fleeing suspect who stole property for the sole purpose of stopping the flight, to me seems a tad excessive especially when a better TV than the one stolen is readily available.
It comes down the the value placed on a life. Is a life is worth just the cost of a TV or a bunch of replaceable property? If it is, then why bother locking people up at all. Just catch them and execute them. No more crimes committed by those caught and a massive $$$ savings from not having to incarcerate them. We all should have the right to defend our lives from someone who would take that from us. Whether or not property ownership should be given the same weight is something that differs from country to country, place to place and situation to situation. Here in the DR, it seems, the value of life depends on the value of the individual or the value of the TV.
Still a lot we don't know about this particular situation. I would not have a hard time believing that the criminal would have injured or killed someone who got in his way while committing whatever crime he committed. At the time he was shot though, it does not appear that he was a threat to anyone except someone who stepped out in front of the fleeing moto. *
I don't have any experience with the handgun at all except the 10 rounds I discharged on a trip to an Asian country some years ago where it cost me $28 and about 2 minutes (expensive activity !), and I got all of the shots almost in the center circle from about 15 feet away - the usual touristy stuff they have over there.
But how hard is it to shoot someone in the leg to stop them running away rather than the head or chest !? They keep saying it is the bigger target and a better place to aim (perhaps for self-defense), but when someone is running away and has their back to you, why would they just aim at the leg and shoot a few rounds - surely one will get him and stop him and he deserves that, but no serious harm (well, he could be maimed, so he won't go robbing again - not a bad result, but still alive !).
Even in all the movies it's always the same, they either decide not to shoot and let the guy go (presumably worried they might kill him) or shoot them right in the place that drops him like a brick and dead...I don't get it... !? (Maybe they just need to train police how to shoot the legs... !)
But how hard is it to shoot someone in the leg to stop them running away rather than the head or chest !? They keep saying it is the bigger target and a better place to aim (perhaps for self-defense), but when someone is running away and has their back to you, why would they just aim at the leg and shoot a few rounds - surely one will get him and stop him and he deserves that, but no serious harm (well, he could be maimed, so he won't go robbing again - not a bad result, but still alive !).
Even in all the movies it's always the same, they either decide not to shoot and let the guy go (presumably worried they might kill him) or shoot them right in the place that drops him like a brick and dead...I don't get it... !? (Maybe they just need to train police how to shoot the legs... !)
Shoot to wound? No..No.. NO!
Shooting to wound - NOTE THAT THIS IS FROM THE UK (not the USA)*
Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
Force Science re-states its case in light of recent "no-kill bill" proposal
A special report from the Force Science Institute
Do police officers really have to kill people when they shoot them? Couldn't they be more humane and just aim for arms or legs?
"When I encounter civilian response to officer-involved shootings, it's very often 'Why didn't they just shoot him in the leg?'" Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, told Force Science News in a 2006 interview centered on Paterson's proposed legislation. "When civilians judge police shooting deaths-on juries, on review boards, in the media, in the community-this same argument is often brought forward. Shooting to wound is naively regarded as a reasonable means of stopping dangerous behavior.
"In reality, this thinking is a result of 'training by Hollywood,' in which movie and TV cops are able to do anything to control the outcomes of events that serve the director's dramatic interests. It reflects a misconception of real-life dynamics and ends up imposing unrealistic expectations of skill on real-life officers."
https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
Shooting to wound - NOTE THAT THIS IS FROM THE UK (not the USA)*
Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
Force Science re-states its case in light of recent "no-kill bill" proposal
A special report from the Force Science Institute
Do police officers really have to kill people when they shoot them? Couldn't they be more humane and just aim for arms or legs?
"When I encounter civilian response to officer-involved shootings, it's very often 'Why didn't they just shoot him in the leg?'" Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, told Force Science News in a 2006 interview centered on Paterson's proposed legislation. "When civilians judge police shooting deaths-on juries, on review boards, in the media, in the community-this same argument is often brought forward. Shooting to wound is naively regarded as a reasonable means of stopping dangerous behavior.
"In reality, this thinking is a result of 'training by Hollywood,' in which movie and TV cops are able to do anything to control the outcomes of events that serve the director's dramatic interests. It reflects a misconception of real-life dynamics and ends up imposing unrealistic expectations of skill on real-life officers."
https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
Shooting a criminal in the leg (i.e. wounding as opposed to killing) pretty much guarantees they will come back for revenge once they are healed.
If you kill them, then you only have to worry about revenge from the family.
If you kill them, then you only have to worry about revenge from the family.
Or load them in the back of the SUV on a tarp and haul them to Gaspar Hernadez and dump them off the edge of a dark dirt road and drive home and say nuthin'. Just saying. Make sure you hide his moto and if he has a friend make it a "double". FYI not confessing to anything here
- Status