Not sure if you’re agreeing with me here or not, but yes.
As there was in many US jurisdictions. NYPD only adopted JHP ammo in 1998.
There is no real argument against hollow points for police to improve lethal force outcomes across the board. Safer for the cops. Safer for the bystanders and even safer for the people being shot by cops.
It was opposition rooted in deliberate ignorance and emotions that are unaligned with reality. As is most anti-gun and anti-cop rhetoric.
I was also not sure(you just said both hold rounds), so I either clarified or corrected.
1 Like
We were trained by civilian police.
I’m not sure that’s true…
Apparently there were 9-1-1 calls about there being a shooter in the store. That would explain the response, as stopping the threat as quickly as possible is the objective in that situation. If that’s true, I think the guy did fine even though there was a tragic outcome(of course, it’s harder to argue that the guy was an active shooter when they didn’t hear any shots…that I know of). If they knew the guy was swinging a lock, I can’t see why less lethal wouldn’t have been the first option.
There are, of course, no guarantees when you get shot, but the numbers demonstrate this notion when looking at police shootings. I don’t remember my exact source for this except it was in one of Massad Ayoob’s books. I did manage to find an article where he touches on this idea, but doesn’t explain it in greater depth.
https://americanhandgunner.com/our-experts/cop-talk/police-ammo-for-the-rest-of-us/
Of course hollow points can still kill and cause grievous damage, but they do have a better chance of stopping the threat without killing the person in actual police use of force situations.
This boils down to the individual effectiveness of the round and the number of holes needed to stop whatever the threat may be.
If we look at the 9mm parabellum round, the most common among American LEO’s, a full metal jacket ball round will easily penetrate the entire torso of a grown man. Plus one more. Plus it can still penetrate a third grown man enough to still potentially kill. One shot will often result in two holes. This can sometimes be better than a bullet lodging itself in your body, but sometimes isn’t. Especially when the number of holes start adding up.
It is especially problematic in the caliber of 9mm, which is what the NYPD has used for quite some time. From a defensive standpoint, 9mm FMJ really sucks compared to modern 9mm JHP, which is quite good compared to other rounds like .40 and .45. NYPD cops were pumping people full of 9mm FMJ ammo to stop the threat.
In simple terms, a guy who took a single 9mm JHP to the torso that lodged in his chest could easily go down with one shot, have aid rendered quickly and still give the person a chance to survive. A single 9mm FMJ round is far, far less likely to stop a person in one shot that isn’t to the CNS, which makes a person dead no matter what they get shot with.
They’re probably going to get shot a lot more than once, making whatever aid gets rendered afterwards a lot less likely to save them.
They still need to see the gun. It’s not exactly uncommon for an ex wife or girlfriend, after an argument or something, to call the cops on their ex and say he has a gun, just to screw with him. The cops don’t just shoot the guy based on someone else’s word.
1 Like
Of course not. Edit: But it would help explain(not justify) what happened…because there’s really no explanation otherwise.
It would explain things but not excuse them. With that said, my initial thoughts are it’s a bad shooting but I’m not married to that and will change my mind once more facts come out that could prove me wrong. It will be interesting to hear the cop explain his actions.
I doubt you’ll hear that. The city will settle with the family; and this won’t be a big deal, because of factors that can be observed in the video.
Ok, for me, this brings up the Ashli Babbitt case. This has been troubling me for some time. Now, I will not defend her actions or the actions of anyone else who broke into the Capitol that day; those who did so are rightly being held accountable. But I am far from convinced that lethal force was appropriate against Ms. Babbitt. She was unarmed, and as far as I can tell, posed no imminent threat of bodily injury to anyone. Yet, the folks who are usually up in arms about police shootings have pretty much taken the attitude that she kind of deserved it. As far as I can tell, the investigation of the officer who shot her was a whitewash. Is there something I’m missing?
4 Likes
I don’t think this is correct, so that should explain it.
1 Like
Another one up the road at Purdue University. We’re still waiting to hear about what led up to this confrontation. On a side note, it might be a good idea if the Purdue Police adopted a regulation that says officers cannot look too much like Hitler. This officer’s hair and mustache are quite unfortunate, especially given the inevitable charges of racism that are being made.
Another fat, dumb, white girl?
Should have clarified; by “another one” I meant another police use of force incident that is generating a lot of heat. I wasn’t referring to a person.
That said, there are plenty of dumb white girls who make trouble for the police.
Is it really? THAT? A guy using very minimal force? Of course, I guess that depends on why he was using any force at all…that would be excessive force if initiated in response to someone obeying too many laws…
And buffets.
Yep. Supposedly the police are getting death threats over it. Fortunately the University president, Mitch Daniels, has some brass balls. I don’t expect he will throw the cop under the bus (see, for instance, the comments of Wisconsin’s spineless governor Tony Evers in the wake of the Kenosha shooting) unless the evidence really does show the officer was out of line.