This sort of thing happens from time to time. It's a good reason not to raid people's houses unless there's suspicion of something going on there that is worth the risk of loss of innocent life -- including police life.
It helps, too, if the homeowner has high definition surveillance cameras that also have high definition audio recording. These won't tell the whole story, but they can tend to corroborate the homeowner's claim, for instance, that the police didn't identify themselves as they came crashing through the door--or that they did, too.
The resident, who had fallen asleep and didn’t hear police announce themselves, fired a shotgun as soon as officers opened the door, striking one in the shoulder and the other in a hand, officials said. One officer returned fire, but didn’t hit anyone.
Were I the PGPD MFWIC, I'd have the department's Chiefs of Training and of Stan/Eval on the carpet to explain how they could train someone to have such bad marksmanship and then stamp him OR with such bad marksmanship. It's good--as it turns out--that the cop missed, but he missed out of incompetence, not out of deliberate decision.
Aside: and then the article concluded with a cheap shot reminder of a wholly unrelated police shooting incident, because moral equivalence.
My guess about that is that their lack of accuracy arose from their fire being suppressive rather than targeted. Being under fire with a superior weapon, that fire coming from a concealed position, it's tactically sound to suppress while taking cover yourselves. Especially since they had wounded to evaluate and treat.
Suppressive fire is absolutely unconscionable in a civilian police setting. Every round that leaves that firearm has the potential to wound or kill an innocent to the limits of it's range, though doors, walls and into other structures. That is not good police practice. The USA is Not Fallujah, much as the training may imply otherwise.
You might say: "Well, it's not strategically sound, because it damages the popular trust that police depend on to be effective." And that's right, which is why there is an apology going on right now. Charging into the wrong house and opening fire is a great way to undermine trust in police and their powers.
Couple things regarding the above: there's no reason to believe the homeowner was firing from a concealed position; he simply prepared to fire when he heard his door being "forced" by "a tool." Had it been me, with my stick and gypsum board walls for barriers, I wouldn't have hid--the gun flash would have given me away, anyway. My shield would have been my line of fire as I approached the bottleneck of my doorway. But that's just me; I can't speak for the man or his tactics who was defending himself and his daughter against a violent home invasion.
It also appeared that the officer who shot back fired only once. That doesn't sound like suppressive fire. And I wholly agree with Raven: were it intended to be suppressive, rather than aimed, it put others within range of the officer's weapon at unwarranted risk.
If it was aimed fire, I stand by my claim of unacceptably bad shooting. The distances across a room in a house, much less an apartment, just aren't that great. The officer wasn't irresponsible in returning fire, just an unacceptably bad shot, which the Chief Trainer and Chief Stan/Eval should be required to explain.
9 comments:
It helps, too, if the homeowner has high definition surveillance cameras that also have high definition audio recording. These won't tell the whole story, but they can tend to corroborate the homeowner's claim, for instance, that the police didn't identify themselves as they came crashing through the door--or that they did, too.
Eric Hines
I am legitimately shocked that the homeowner was not killed after firing at police.
Some further information about this via FoxNews:
The resident, who had fallen asleep and didn’t hear police announce themselves, fired a shotgun as soon as officers opened the door, striking one in the shoulder and the other in a hand, officials said. One officer returned fire, but didn’t hit anyone.
Were I the PGPD MFWIC, I'd have the department's Chiefs of Training and of Stan/Eval on the carpet to explain how they could train someone to have such bad marksmanship and then stamp him OR with such bad marksmanship. It's good--as it turns out--that the cop missed, but he missed out of incompetence, not out of deliberate decision.
Aside: and then the article concluded with a cheap shot reminder of a wholly unrelated police shooting incident, because moral equivalence.
Eric Hines
My guess about that is that their lack of accuracy arose from their fire being suppressive rather than targeted. Being under fire with a superior weapon, that fire coming from a concealed position, it's tactically sound to suppress while taking cover yourselves. Especially since they had wounded to evaluate and treat.
Suppressive fire is absolutely unconscionable in a civilian police setting. Every round that leaves that firearm has the potential to wound or kill an innocent to the limits of it's range, though doors, walls and into other structures. That is not good police practice.
The USA is Not Fallujah, much as the training may imply otherwise.
Sure, maybe it’s unconscionable. But it’s tactically sound.
You might say: "Well, it's not strategically sound, because it damages the popular trust that police depend on to be effective." And that's right, which is why there is an apology going on right now. Charging into the wrong house and opening fire is a great way to undermine trust in police and their powers.
Couple things regarding the above: there's no reason to believe the homeowner was firing from a concealed position; he simply prepared to fire when he heard his door being "forced" by "a tool." Had it been me, with my stick and gypsum board walls for barriers, I wouldn't have hid--the gun flash would have given me away, anyway. My shield would have been my line of fire as I approached the bottleneck of my doorway. But that's just me; I can't speak for the man or his tactics who was defending himself and his daughter against a violent home invasion.
It also appeared that the officer who shot back fired only once. That doesn't sound like suppressive fire. And I wholly agree with Raven: were it intended to be suppressive, rather than aimed, it put others within range of the officer's weapon at unwarranted risk.
If it was aimed fire, I stand by my claim of unacceptably bad shooting. The distances across a room in a house, much less an apartment, just aren't that great. The officer wasn't irresponsible in returning fire, just an unacceptably bad shot, which the Chief Trainer and Chief Stan/Eval should be required to explain.
Eric Hines
...it put others within range of the officer's weapon at unwarranted risk.
Meant to include: like the man's daughter, whom he also was defending.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment