TexasCHLforum.com

The North Miami police officer who shot an unarmed, black mental health worker caring for a patient actually took aim at the autistic man next to him, but missed, the head of the police union said Thursday

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/c ... rylink=cpy

Fired three shots from 50 yards away with an "assault rifle."

But the police are the only ones highly trained enough to be trusted with "weapons of war" on our streets...

That story made my brain hurt.

So the officer was trying to shoot the mentally challenged fellow sitting on the curb playing with his toy truck. He fired three shots, thankfully missing his target, and hit the guy next to him with one of them. All while the "victim" was yelling that everything was fine and please don't shoot. And if that was 50 yards, I'm 15 feet tall. Looked like 50 feet at the outside. There is just so much wrong with this.

LucasMcCain wrote:That story made my brain hurt....
There is just so much wrong with this.

SWAT team guy 50 feet away missing the big, wide, sitting target and hitting the low, prone non-target from a supported position. Training? Something. As already mentioned, lots wrong with this picture.

LucasMcCain wrote:That story made my brain hurt.

So the officer was trying to shoot the mentally challenged fellow sitting on the curb playing with his toy truck. He fired three shots, thankfully missing his target, and hit the guy next to him with one of them. All while the "victim" was yelling that everything was fine and please don't shoot. And if that was 50 yards, I'm 15 feet tall. Looked like 50 feet at the outside. There is just so much wrong with this.

Regardless of the distance, if the shooter was not confident in his ability to make the shot, he shouldn't have pulled the trigger. Even if it were 50 inches. And if was confident in his ability to make the shot and then missed 3 shots in a row, with a rifle, then he is delusional and may be the one who belongs in a mental institution.

As a citizen I find this disturbing. As the grandfather of an autistic child, I find this outrageous and unbelievably negligent.

If the autistic man was that much of a threat, why after firing 3 shots (and missing him) was it acceptable to run up and restrain him?

A Lebanese proverb: An Excuse more ugly than the Sin.

bblhd672 wrote:As a citizen I find this disturbing. As the grandfather of an autistic child, I find this outrageous and unbelievably negligent.

If the autistic man was that much of a threat, why after firing 3 shots (and missing him) was it acceptable to run up and restrain him?

I had this thought too. If the officer were shooting to stop a threat, why did he quit shooting before he had stopped the threat? What changed after three shots, none of which hit "the mark?"

This is pretty outrageous.

This officer was also a SWAT member, which leads me to believe that either he was under influence of something or the shot he made was not a miss but a deliberate hit. Nothing makes sense here.

Beiruty wrote:A Lebanese proverb: An Excuse more ugly than the Sin.

My drill sergeant used to say something like that, he also added a comparison to a sows ear full of waste matter.
Then he would have instructed us to find the bullets that were fired, don't return until you find them.

I also remember reading somewhere (don't remember where) that 30% of LEO's can shoot, 30% are about like your average civilian, and the other 30% should not be allowed to carry any weapon. No disrespected intended, I love all of our LEO's.
Maybe lack of practice, perhaps due to budgets.

But in any case, this one looks like bad judgement.

The video didn't show the shot, but it shows where the two guys were on the ground and where the police were. They had a bad angle and the care giver was in the line of fire. The cops were using the cover of light polls nearby. 50 feet appears accurate. I don't know why they needed cover.

From the angle of the video, you can see the autistic guy's hands and see that he doesn't have a gun. I don't see why he needed to be shot just because he didn't fully comply.

My gut feeling is an officer with too light a trigger and maybe with the full auto switch activated. Regardless it looks like a bad shoot.

If the caretaker wasn't the target, why then did they rush up, put him in hand cuffs, and let him bleed for 20 minutes without aide? Also, can we make binoculars standard equipment for squad cars? "Looked like a gun" seems like a pretty lame excuse for a incident in broad daylight.

Stinky more than a skunk's business

flowrie wrote:I also remember reading somewhere (don't remember where) that 30% of LEO's can shoot, 30% are about like your average civilian, and the other 30% should not be allowed to carry any weapon. No disrespected intended, I love all of our LEO's.
Maybe lack of practice, perhaps due to budgets.

But in any case, this one looks like bad judgement.

I was at the range recently shooting next to an off duty LEO (he checked in in front of me and showed his credentials to shoot free that day, and also had his duty belt on). The poor guy was very inaccurate with what looked to be his Glock 17. He sprayed rounds all over the torso sized target, and off the target, at 7 yards. This was slow, aimed, fire. The poor guy looked young so maybe he was still in training? It made me happy that this range allowed LEO's to shoot free so they can get practice if needed, but it was also very scary.