Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, October 16, 2020

During ABC's town hall event with former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate provided a garbled response to a question about criminal justice reform. In particular, he wrongly suggested that when police fire their weapons at suspects, they could shoot to wound instead of shooting to kill.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

"You can ban chokeholds, but beyond that you have to teach [the police] how to de-escalate circumstances," said Biden. "So instead of anybody coming at you and the first thing you do is shoot to kill, you shoot them in the leg." This was just one line in a very long, rambling answer to a question about police violence"but it stuck out for its sheer absurdity.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Why is that so stupid? Serious question. Anyone.

#1 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-16 02:13 PM | Reply

Why shoot to wound, when you can shoot to kill?

#2 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 02:22 PM | Reply

Because shooting to wound is a TV/Movie myth people unfortunately believe. Get shot in the leg and you have a high probability of, to paraphrase GoT, nick something that can't be unnicked quick enough to save you.

#3 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-10-16 03:39 PM | Reply

... he wrongly suggested that when police fire their weapons at suspects, they could shoot to wound instead of shooting to kill. ...

What Mr Biden said was, "So instead of anybody coming at you and the first thing you do is shoot to kill, you shoot them in the leg."

There is a not so subtle difference in the wording and meaning.

Mr Biden had the restriction of a suspect "coming at you", not just any random suspect. The latter was a strawman created by the author of the article.

The first question in my mind is, how far away does a policeman start shooting at a suspect when the suspect is coming at him?

100 feet?

25 feet?

15 feet?

10 feet?

My next question is, just how bad of a shot are these policemen? Maybe we should provide aiming training for policemen?


#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-16 03:45 PM | Reply

No Joe, Cops can't just shoot you in the leg

What a stupid assertion.

Of course they can.

#5 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-10-16 10:52 PM | Reply

Of course they can.

Statistically speaking one of the 23 rounds fired will probably hit a leg.

#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-10-16 11:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

What a stupid assertion.

Of course they can.

#5 | Posted by Angrydad

Stupid answer.

Of course they shouldn't.

If a situation warrants the drawing of a weapon and deadly force you use deadly force. Period.

Firearms aren't crowd control measures and I think you'll regret making them so.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2020-10-17 02:53 AM | Reply

#7

An anecdote to illustrate. While in the Army we came up on post duty a few times. That meant we guarded certain base infrastructure. We were issued weapons and ammo, shotguns or sidearms, depending on duty. We attended a class, again, on use of force before deployment.

After the class, while standing in formation, Top told us, paraphrased, "If you are in that situation, make d**n sure you are right and make d**n sure there is only one story to be told."

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2020-10-17 03:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Any time you require a police officer who has determined deadly force is necessary to aim at a certain part of the body, you are asking for trouble. Center mass is the only place to aim. Why? You can't dodge with your torso as much as you think, plus it'sa larger target. Legs and arms, while also potentially lethal shots, are moved very easily and much smaller so incredibly easy to miss. Where'd that bullet that missed go that missed because you required the officer to narrow his aim point unnecessarily? Could be anywhere. Even into innocent people very far away.

Leg and arm shots are simply stupid. Anyone that thinks otherwise has never shot a gun, especially not under duress.

#9 | Posted by ABH at 2020-10-17 08:21 AM | Reply

"Firearms aren't crowd control measures and I think you'll regret making them so."

Nobody is suggesting that.

Nobody.

#10 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-10-17 09:49 AM | Reply

#10 Suggesting leg and arm shots as if they are non lethal is doing exactly that.

#11 | Posted by ABH at 2020-10-17 11:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

@#9 ... Any time you require a police officer who has determined deadly force is necessary ...

Yeah, that's a whole 'nuther thread, though...

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-17 11:13 AM | Reply

I do wonder why service arms aren't fitted with some sort of stun or shock device. Many guns now are fitted with picatinnty rails where something could be mounted.

That way, police could have a non-lethal option first. If that failed, a lethal round could be fired a fraction of a second later.

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-17 11:49 AM | Reply

#13 because even with training, mistakes over which one you activated, the lethal or non lethal would be frequent.

It's much better to train the officer to differentiate between the gun and other less than lethal weapons by having to actually consciously reach for them.

#14 | Posted by ABH at 2020-10-17 12:14 PM | Reply

@#14 ... It's much better to train the officer to differentiate between the gun and other less than lethal weapons by having to actually consciously reach for them. ...

I agree the training of police officers can be improved significantly. Your suggestion is an excellent one.

That should also be coupled with some manner of changes to some other things.

For example, I have often mentioned the blue wall of silence. I'd really like to see police officers be more willing to get rid of the bad apples from within, instead of condoning the bad behavior via their silence.

Another example, in NYC it seems the police union acts almost as if it is a sovereign state within NYC, one that does not appear to be accountable to the people of NYC. I'd like to see a lot more transparency regarding the police unions and the power they have.



#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-17 12:27 PM | Reply

I agree. I'd Also like to see more civilian oversight for departments.

#16 | Posted by ABH at 2020-10-17 01:29 PM | Reply

Another one for me...

The qualified immunity enjoyed by police officers. I think we need to take a long, hard look at that and how it affects the behavior and decisions of police officers.

My opinion at this point is that qualified immunity should be eliminated or significantly reduced in scope. It is being abused.

#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-17 01:44 PM | Reply

That one I disagree with. The sheer volume of frivolous complaints they already face as suspects throw up a flurry of bull in a desperate attempt to get away with their shenanigans, would not only go up dramatically, they would be forced to settle cases just before it's cheaper to do so than to continue paying lawyers to fight.... even though the overwhelming majority of cases would be absolute crap. I think PDs would start being viewed as ATMs and get rich quick schemes.

#18 | Posted by ABH at 2020-10-17 01:51 PM | Reply

Just because

#19 | Posted by ABH at 2020-10-17 01:52 PM | Reply

I am hoping my daughter is shot to death in her bed cause in these difficult times I could use 12 million?

We have judges and juries to decide what's frivolous.

#20 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-17 02:11 PM | Reply

@#14 ... It's much better to train the officer to differentiate between the gun and other less than lethal weapons by having to actually consciously reach for them. ...

I agree the training of police officers can be improved significantly. Your suggestion is an excellent one.

#15 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2020-10-17 12:27 PM | FLAG:

It's been measured that time from taking a hand out of a pocket with anything in it, and shooting or stabbing an officer, gives you 12/100th of a second reaction time. How fast do you think police are?

#21 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-10-17 02:16 PM | Reply

#20 uh... no. But, as you are arrested claiming over use of physical force would become widespread. I mean the extremes make for fun fiction, but come on.

Suddenly everyone is suing every officer personally the second the handcuffs are put on, the police can't get anything done, and every officer is bankrupt.

#22 | Posted by ABH at 2020-10-17 02:23 PM | Reply

Very rarely are officers sued, their employer is.

I mean if you can't remember where you live and kill someone eating ice cream in their own home you will be sued.

But other than that, very rarely.

And if they are that worried there must be private insurance for that.

#23 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-17 02:30 PM | Reply

True. But the getting rid of qualified immunity would change that. Officers ARE subject to a mountain of frivolous complaints already. Changing qualified immunity would increase that, and turn them into lawsuits

#24 | Posted by ABH at 2020-10-17 02:34 PM | Reply

@#18 ... The sheer volume of frivolous complaints they already face as suspects throw up a flurry of bull in a desperate attempt to get away with their shenanigans, ...

As opposed to police officers getting away with killing people?

My view is that qualified immunity is broken. It has been, is being, abused by some police officers to allow them to get away with crimes, up to and including murder.

The concept that an officer, who is supposed to uphold the law, can commit a crime and get away with it... that concept is foreign to me.

While I agree that there may be a need to reduce or prevent frivolous lawsuits, I remain to be convinced that qualified immunity is the only means to that goal.

But I'm more than willing to listen to fixing qualified immunity or coming up with an alternative.


#25 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-17 02:34 PM | Reply

btw, excellent discussion.

Thanks.

#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-17 02:35 PM | Reply

Qualified doesn't mean "see this shiny badge"

It's kinda like the thin blue line thing, it has two meanings.

1 us against them

2 us against you

#27 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-17 02:41 PM | Reply

I agree it could use some tweaks. But the system as it exists, provided it is used as intended (it isn't) along with civilian oversight, would alleviate many of your concerns.

The reason cops are paid for so long is due to the volume of dubious complaints made against them.

The way the process is supposed to work, complaint is filed, investigation conducted, if found in scope of employment, good to go, return to full duty.

If not found in the scope of employment, qualified immunity doesn't apply and they are tried criminally and/or civilly.

Where the system is broken in my view isn't the qualified immunity part, it's the lack of civilian oversight where the outcome can't be Hidden from view. More officers need to be stripped of their qualified immunity.... but on a case by case basis, where the ultimate arbiter isn't the cops friends on the department. Is a civilian panel that reviews the complaints.

#28 | Posted by ABH at 2020-10-17 02:43 PM | Reply

ABH, I agree but they fight against civilian oversight with all their might because you silly civilians do not understand the Thin Blue Line.

Don't get me wrong, I support the average cop and I believe they support me. But I think we all know what's happening here.

#29 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-17 03:00 PM | Reply

Chauvin for example. This guy didn't just have a bad day under trying circumstances, this guy has been a problem for a long time.

Answer: put him in charge of training newbies?

#30 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-17 03:05 PM | Reply

Either way you are asking for major changes that will have to be rammed down their throats.

Do away with their protections and just make it a free for all on the bank accounts of the city/county?

Or force common sense solution of civilian oversight. Both have an uphill battle, both will solve the problem, but ending qualified immunity will spawn many other problems.

#31 | Posted by ABH at 2020-10-17 03:15 PM | Reply

Well body cams should solve alot of the problems if they aren't turned on and off at will nor edited. Reasonable people will come to reasonable conclusions.

Not this well you didn't see what happened before bs.

FTR all my dealings with cops, they've been totally professional.

Though, good to be white.

#32 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-17 03:35 PM | Reply

And don't tell me it's not feasible, Snowden would tell you it could be easily done.

#33 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-17 04:01 PM | Reply

The reason cops are paid for so long is due to the volume of dubious complaints made against them.
#28 | POSTED BY ABH

Which is why only 25% of law enforcement are against wearing body cameras. 3/4's of law enforcement are willing to eliminate their sense of privacy on the job to ensure there is video evidence of those exact dubious complaints. Clearly, there are still departments and individuals within law enforcement who ignore or even abuse the body camera system as it's currently being implemented. That should really speak volumes as to where we currently are in this criminal justice reform movement.

#34 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-10-17 04:18 PM | Reply

Your sense of privacy begins when you clock out. Public means public in the term public servant.

And as a private observation, test positive for anabolic steroids, you're gone. Period.

#35 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-17 04:32 PM | Reply

@#28 ... I agree it could use some tweaks. But the system as it exists, provided it is used as intended (it isn't) along with civilian oversight, would alleviate many of your concerns. ..

Tweaks, adjustments, changes...

I would prefer we spent the resources looking at what is in place and changing it, tweaking it, whatever, to assure it does what we need it to do, what we want it to do.

Let's agree on what needs to be done, and just do it™.

Even if it is one step at a time.

There seems to be agreement that a change is needed. Let's move forward.

Of course, in the words of Five For Fighting...

Five for Fighting - Easy Tonight
www.youtube.com

...Don't know where I'm going yet
But I sure am getting there...

#36 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-17 09:47 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort