TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:so they MISSED and because they're bad shots they get to stay on the street, whereas a cop who is a good shot would be forced to desk duty?

Never let policy get in the way of common sense.

Every law-enforcement agency that I know of puts officers on administrative duty or leave when they shoot someone. I can see reasons for such a policy that I will not argue with.

As far as missing, there seems to be a common opinion in this forum that hitting a moving person or animal at night under stress should be as easy as hitting armless, inanimate paper silhouettes that stand there innocently waiting to be shot. It ain't. Justified police shootings rarely have a hit rate as high as 50%.

- Jim

Jim, I didn't mean to imply the officers were derilict in their duty for missing with their shots (I realize my "bad shots" reference probably muddled this - was using that phrase for dramatic effect). I likely would've missed too (I missed a few cardboard bad guys this morning in broad daylight). And I fully understand the need to put officers on restricted duty or leave after a shooting. My point was that it seems illogical to NOT put an officer on leave just because the officer's bullets missed the intended target. The more logical policy would be the same reaction any time an officer discharges a weapon while on duty.

The policy to allow an officer to continue regular duty because he missed is what I'm questioning.

Typically, Smith said, officers involved in shooting cases are placed on three days' desk duty, but these officers will remain on full duty because no one was injured.

so they MISSED and because they're bad shots they get to stay on the street, whereas a cop who is a good shot would be forced to desk duty? Not intending to disparage the officers involved; just questioning the logic of the PD's decision.