Another Shootout on Dashcam

[Purplehood]

Officers fired at him and later found him dead in the truck

Did they go get something to eat and come back later?

If I were one of them I would have stopped to catch my breath and let my heart-rate drop.

[steveincowtown]

“Wisconsin police fire at suspect who allegedly shot at them during traffic stop”

We live in a weird day in age. Does the news really need to say allegedly when the incident is on video and the suspect is dead?

[speedsix]

...you NEVER see them say "...the police allegedly shot Mr. So&so, who had just robbed a bank..."...doesn't sound nearly as racy!!!

[Excaliber]

Good shoot for justice.

BAD shoot for accuracy.

Stopping somebody who's trying to kill you isn't a slow fire bullseye exercise, and success or failure is measured by incident results rather than micrometers.

I thought the officers involved delivered outstanding on target accuracy considering the distance, suspect and vehicle motion, and difficulty seeing into the cab of the vehicle.

Just MHO.

[ELB]

Officers fired at him and later found him dead in the truck

Did they go get something to eat and come back later?

If I were one of them I would have stopped to catch my breath and let my heart-rate drop.

One of the articles says that the police called out an armored vehicle and used it to approach the truck. That seems to account for "later."

[speedsix]

Good shoot for justice.

BAD shoot for accuracy.

Stopping somebody who's trying to kill you isn't a slow fire bullseye exercise, and success or failure is measured by incident results rather than micrometers.

I thought the officers involved delivered outstanding on target accuracy considering the distance, suspect and vehicle motion, and difficulty seeing into the cab of the vehicle.

Just MHO.

...nah, too many shots fired after he stopped shooting, turned, and headed for the truck...we're not talkin' a great distance according to the dashcam...once he got into the truck, I'm agreein' with you...but he never should have made it into the truck...and, no, I haven't been in any gunfights, but success is measured by making your shots count...pistol or revolver shoulda had him before he got back into the truck...

[ddurkof]

...nah, too many shots fired after he stopped shooting, turned, and headed for the truck...we're not talkin' a great distance according to the dashcam...once he got into the truck, I'm agreein' with you...but he never should have made it into the truck...and, no, I haven't been in any gunfights, but success is measured by making your shots count...pistol or revolver shoulda had him before he got back into the truck...[/quote]

So what was in the truck that you wanted him to get to? Someone jumps out of a truck and starts shooting, and only then realizing that that he made a large tactical mistake, does not get a free pass from the police he just tried to kill. You shoot until the threat stops or is dead. In gunfights suppressive fire making the bad guy worry about surviving and not getting effective rounds down range is also a good thing. His retreat into the truck could have been to just escape the firefight he started, or it could be to get the AR, AK, pipe bombs or what every extra gear he had to help him kill the officers, but he was not surrendering.

Let him escape to take hostages somewhere else? Not a good idea either. Also success in any gunfight is measured by who goes home and who doesn't. The bad guy didn't make it so I would say it was a good gunfight.

[gigag04]

Good shoot for justice.

BAD shoot for accuracy.

All the range-time in the world can go right out the window when someone is shooting at you at the same time.

QFT

[Purplehood]

Good shoot for justice.

BAD shoot for accuracy.

All the range-time in the world can go right out the window when someone is shooting at you at the same time.

QFT

I had to Google that one.

[mgood]

Me too.

[Jasonw560]

Quantum Field Theory?

[speedsix]

...nah, too many shots fired after he stopped shooting, turned, and headed for the truck...we're not talkin' a great distance according to the dashcam...once he got into the truck, I'm agreein' with you...but he never should have made it into the truck...and, no, I haven't been in any gunfights, but success is measured by making your shots count...pistol or revolver shoulda had him before he got back into the truck...

So what was in the truck that you wanted him to get to? Someone jumps out of a truck and starts shooting, and only then realizing that that he made a large tactical mistake, does not get a free pass from the police he just tried to kill. You shoot until the threat stops or is dead. In gunfights suppressive fire making the bad guy worry about surviving and not getting effective rounds down range is also a good thing. His retreat into the truck could have been to just escape the firefight he started, or it could be to get the AR, AK, pipe bombs or what every extra gear he had to help him kill the officers, but he was not surrendering.

Let him escape to take hostages somewhere else? Not a good idea either. Also success in any gunfight is measured by who goes home and who doesn't. The bad guy didn't make it so I would say it was a good gunfight. [/quote]

...if you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I didn't want him to get to the truck...that was my whole point...if you'll look at the video and TRY to count all the officers' shots between the time he began shooting, then turned to go to the truck...there were enough rounds sprayed at him that he should have been killed BEFORE he got into the truck...if any of them had aimed carefully...look at the dashcam video...he was close...again, if you'll re-read my post...once he made it back to the truck, I'm in agreement with the rest...he had to be stopped...nobody suggested letting him escape to take hostages...so instead of reading into my post what I didn't write...my post says just what I meant...way too many shots fired AFTER he stopped shooting and BEFORE he got back into the truck...for him not to have been hit...several times...the range was close and he made a big target...it should have been over BEFORE he got back into the truck...just read what I wrote and it'll be a lot easier than suggesting I said things that I clearly didn't...

[Jasonw560]

A) was he on something that heightened his adrenaline? He could have been on PCP or Meth. He could have been shot, and made it on pure adrenaline.

B) did he get into the truck because he was shot many times and was trying to get away? IME, when someone is shot, it doesn't present like in the movies. Not shot and them a big old blood spot forms. I have had to search for an entry wound for a GSW victim.

These two could have been real factors.

[speedsix]

...possible...as of Tuesday they were still analyzing the autopsy...from what we have now, no indication they hit him till he got back in the truck...now they're linking him to as many as 10 other shooting sprees...
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[A-R]

“Wisconsin police fire at suspect who allegedly shot at them during traffic stop”

We live in a weird day in age. Does the news really need to say allegedly when the incident is on video and the suspect is dead?

Yes, they do. And here's why (btw, I was a newspaper journalist for more than 10 years - so I have some dated experience with this, but of course I am not a lawyer):

We all know what we saw on video. But until something is adjudicated in a court of law (or at least stated without reservation/qualification by authorities, at which point "according to authorities" replaces "allegedly") then the news organization has no choice but to say "allegedly" to avoid potential libel suits. And remember, everyone KNOWS that the LAPD beat Rodney King and saw it on video - but they were acquitted. Everyone KNOWS OJ Simpson was guilty, but he was acquitted, etc etc.

Now, I agree a libel suit from a dead bad guy isn't likely. But just like we obey the Four Rules all the time every time without fail, a news reporter/editor must follow the "rules" of avoiding libel suits all the time every time without fail. Could be proven later that he was not firing at police but instead firing at his estranged ex wife/girlfriend who was near the police. Doesn't really change the police justification for returning fire, but If bad guy lives, or his mom wants revenge, then they bring up some trumped up libel lawsuit if firing at a girlfriend is a lesser charge than firing at police (or some other technicality). Again, not likely, but neither is it likely you'll shoot yourself in the leg and you still don't point the muzzle at your leg.

More often "allegedly" is helpful to deflect problems caused by other screw ups, like getting the bad guy's name wrong (which happens more than you'd think). In that case, you've now without question libeled the still alive non-bad guy. So by saying "allegedly" you at least have some protection (but not much) from the pending libel suit.