TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote:
Also, please point out the "lot of shootings you would consider excessive force" and explain.

Are you suggesting the shooting s were not justified, or that it was a justified shooting and the person was "over killed"?

The one that comes immediately to mind happened in California, but I don't have the link right now. 3 officers shot between 3 and 5 rounds a piece into a suspect. It was a justified shooting, per the article, and the officers received a few days off, whatever the term is for that.

I am suggesting that if we, as civilians, used as many rounds in shootings as some LEOs have in some incidents, that we would be treated a lot different than they are. No, I am not saying that I should not be looked at strange if *I* fired 110 rounds into a BG. But I probably would if I fired the same amount as one of those officers involved in this incident. And isn't the justification for deadly force a justification to use deadly force to /stop/ a BG, not to use such force as to assure his trip to the morgue?

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.

Lets change the situation a little.

Lets say you have been accused, wrongly, of killing a Law enforcement officer.

Now how would you feel about this type of justice?