Coyne wrote:So first off the bat, if the officer was shooting at the autistic man, he missed by at least 10 degrees. with an effing assault rifle! (I personally shot a deer at 150 feet with an ordinary rifle and was pissed because I missed his neck and hit him in the back...because he was jumping up a hill.) I could see a 10 degree miss with a handgun at 60 feet or however far over 30 feet, but the officer should have been able to sort that and hit the target with an assault rifle at 150 feet, and a non-moving target, at least.
An officer that misses like that with an assault rifle has no business touching one. There he is, touching...
So he shot Kinsey on purpose. Why? And lied about it: an obvious lie. A lie so blatant it's clear he didn't care if people knew he was lying. He didn't need true, he didn't need plausible, he didn't even need reasonable doubt...all he needed was something for the apologists to latch onto.
Unless I'm misreading you're saying that because the shot against a non-moving target in this circumstance should be something a trained officer should be able to do with a rifle, no problem, then the fact he hit Kinsey implies he did it on purpose. I could buy that logic, if 2 of his 3 shots didn't miss completely. The fact he missed 2 out of 3 shots indicates that he was a pretty damn bad shot to begin with, so the premise that he could have made the shot in question, no problem, is not in fact valid. Now this doesn't prove that he wasn't trying to shoot Kinsey on purpose. But the logic you provided to say he certainly shot Kinsey on purpose is flawed.
Sizes in Coyne's post changed for emphasis of what I took to be the point.
The police apparently feel no qualms about handing a loaded AR-15 to an utterly incompetent rifleman and having him spray bullets all over the town, and he apparently had no qualms about doing so or no idea how bad a shot he was and not enough sense to realise that a man's got to know his limitations
. When the news that he'd fired three shots from that range with that weapon and missed twice went public, the PD didn't immediately release a statement saying: "We had no idea people that incompetent were somehow getting through training and assessment. We have immediately removed everybody's qualification on that weapon, and are in the process of reviewing our training and assessment procedures with an aim to starting the process of re-training and re-assessing all officers to make sure they have something at least resembling a clue how to use the weapons accurately, how good they are with the weapons, what the weapons are capable of and, most importantly, how to handle the weapons without accidentally firing them. We're also getting experts in from other places like Switzerland, Scotland, Norway, Iceland and so on to teach us how to talk to people without shooting them first." The police were called, so they showed up and sprayed some bullets around and they're acting like that's entirely acceptable
. The shooter was incompetent and they're acting like that's entirely acceptable, too
. I'm not saying it would have been better if he'd hit the innocent man twice in the chest and once in the head before finding out what the situation was, but if We The People are going to pay a select few of our number to carry weapons around and enforce laws meant to protect us from each other (including them) then We The People (including senior members among those select few) ought to be making damn sure they're fit for purpose. That includes being able to judge when to shoot and when not
to shoot, and being able to judge whether you've got a good shot at your target right now.
The cop who fired in the event being discussed apparently wasn't good enough to intervene in that situation.
I'm not saying they should all be good enough to make the shot here:
... partly because, as the articles about Scottish police have mentioned, shooting isn't necessarily the right response to that situation and partly because shooting is quite often not the right response and we want most of our police officers to spend a lot of their time learning how to handle situations without anyone getting shot rather than all of it on the range.
Yes, you could shoot that guy. Aim 40mm above (because your sight line is above your trajectory at that range) the chamber of his RH pistol, put a hole through both chamber walls and the round, knock the gun back into his shoulder and blow a great big crater through his shoulder and down he goes with no gun aimed at anyone. If necessary, shoot him again after she moves. She'll probably run towards you, though, so maybe your mate off to your right should make the second shot if it's necessary. Alternatively, you could try to get him to put the guns down or try to get him to aim them both at your armoured chest or wait for some writhing to give you a clear shot through his left eye and brainstem
and jsut hope his right hand doesn't spasm the wrong way when you take it.
Thing is, the un-named trigger-happy rookie ...
Rivera called the officer who shot Charles Kinsey, “decorated” and said he was a member of city’s SWAT team.
... er ... okay, the un-named, decorated, trigger-happy member of the city's SWAT team can't shoot for toffee and
a) is convinced he's a better shot than Master Chief
b) doesn't know or care how good a shot he is or
c) knows he's a lousy shot and doesn't care that he's putting innocent lives in danger every time he touches that particular piece of hardware.
Any of those ought to disqualify him as an armed police officer, let alone as a member of the supposedly "elite" SWAT units.
It's basic gun control. If you've got a gun, you ought to be fully in control of it. If you can't control it, don't have it.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.