Alric wrote:My point is, I've seen a lot of shootings I'd consider excessive force. The guy being shot at simply didn't have a chance in hell. If I empty a mag into a BG, or two mags that I'd usually carry, you know the LEOs that come to investigate the situation would raise eyebrows, and rightly so. It doesn't take 110 bullets to "stop" a threat. 110 bullets annihilates it.
And I'm not even saying that from the LEO perspective, I wouldn't have done the same thing. But thats also one of the reasons I'm not a LEO. We have a judge and jury system to determine and deal with guilt.
I understand how you might think this shooting "excessive". Lets break it down a bit though. There were 9 SWAT members involved in the shooting, that equates to approximately 12 rounds fired by each.
We are not told if this was pistol fire or "automatic" rifle/carbine fire. Either way, I can easily see how each person felt threatened (they were close together), and simply responded to the threat as trained. Frankly, I am surprised more shots were not taken.
Additionally, if you consider the environment (a wooded area), and that the suspect was using cover (a fallen tree), then it only makes sense to saturate the area with fire. I can assure you this happened quickly, and was just what the suspect wanted.
I see no wild west justice being dispensed, and I know that is not what you are suggesting.
It will be interesting to see what other facts unfold in the coming days.
I will say this though: It is a patently bad idea to shoot and kill a LEO, wound another, kill a police dog, hide behind a tree and point a gun at the rest of them. The outcome of that will always be, ummmmm......"consistent".