Tuesday, November 28, 2006
How Many Shots Are Too Much? (Part II)
They also note that "Police rules mandate that an officer pause after firing three rounds to assess the situation. If the shooters had followed procedures, they might have seen there was no threat before it was too late." I've never heard of that regulation before, but even if it's true, I'm not sure why it's relevant. All it takes is one shot to the head or chest and you're a deadman. 3 unjustified shots are 3 too many, and there is no limit on the number of shots in a justified shooting. You keep shooting until the threat has been neutralized.
When one officer fires, there is often a psychological reaction and the rest of them start too. This in my opinion is not that wise.
"All it takes is one shot to the head or chest and you're a deadman."
If so, than why the need for 50+ shots? I think part of the reason that people are focusing on the number of bullets fired is because every shot fired has the potential to strike an innocent bystander. As mevaseretzion said, "it seems frenzied and not a situation that the policemen behaved calmly in."
I generally like to give police the benefit of the doubt as well. I don't think for one second that the officers had malicious intent. But there is an old military adage: In a crisis, you sink to the level of your training.
Did these policemen panic? Maybe, maybe not. We still don't know all the facts. But it would take a heckuva lot to convince me 51 (!) shots were fired from something other than a state of panic.