2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

"Subject" is also a word used by old-school cops when writing reports. "Vehicle" for car, "dispatched" for sent...

Again, I wouldn't read too much into her usage of the word.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

There are plenty of vital organs in the chest but that's not the reason for being the point of aim; the reason is because it presents the largest target. Period. If an officer has made the decision to fire then it's important that the round goes where it's intended rather than downrange into god-knows-what. To increase the chances of that happening? Aim for the largest part of the body.

In regards to four rounds being fired I never disputed that. Is that too many? Depends. Was one round enough to stop the threat? There are PLENTY of cases where a person has been shot multiple times and was still able to function. As a matter of fact, most people that are shot with handguns (if I recall) survive.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

What you forget is that this is not a clinical setting we're talking about; this took place at an outdoor restroom with a bloody man holding an edged weapon and, it appears, not willing to disarm. To top it off, the incident probably began and ended in seconds.

I'm all for compassion, I really am, but it would appear that the officer perceived the man as a threat. If someone was threatening you armed with an edged weapon would compassion be the first thing on your mind?

BTW, I'm not sure how many years ago you were referring to but I'd be shocked if it was recent. A lot of things were different many years ago that no longer (thank god) take place.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Because if it has come to a point where the officer felt he needed to defend himself then he's got these options:

Pepper. Works good on dogs but combative people can still fight through it. (Not saying he was combative but people can still function very well after being sprayed.)

TASER. Pretty high success rate but is it high enough if you're facing someone with an edged weapon? If you miss, forget about reloading it because he can be all over you by now.

Stick. Really not that effective which is why it's not used that much anymore and if it didn't work then, again, it's too late.

Firearm. The most effective, period. Remember, the officer perceived the man as a threat and that mad had an edged weapon and was bloody. Did he cut someone else already? Don't know. To be truly fair you have to only consider what information that officer had at that moment, not hours, days, months or years later.

I'll make the same offer to you as I made to someone else here: I'll hold an edged weapon and you can have an ASP (nightstick) and we'll see who comes out the winner.

BTW: PPB HAS had officers stabbed before.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

How about this: I'll hold an razor and you try to physically overpower me. I'm going to venture a guess that you won't take me up on this offer.

Keep in mind that most cops aren't constantly training in MMA (mixed martial arts) or are always in top physical conditioning. They are human just like you.

What you wonder is unrealistic and, yes, probably because you've been brainwashed by TV.

Go on a ridealong. Better yet, go on a couple.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Option, yes. A good option, no.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

You're reading too much into that. I suspect that she was trying not to give a clue to who he was before his family was notified.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

No, cops are not taught to "shoot to kill." Cops are taught to shoot at the largest target. (That'd be the chest area.) If cops were taught to shoot to kill they'd be aiming for the head.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

If a citizen used force, even deadly force, to defend himself I doubt very much he'd be taken into custody immediately. Give me an example of this please.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I believe that there were at least two witness' that heard the officer say "Drop the knife" and "Get down!"

Please.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Actually, knives pulled on cops doesn't happen much in real life. You watch too much television, I think.

And where do you get your information that knives are notorious for being much more difficult to kill? A knife can slice through a vest like butter.

I tire of the question as to why not shoot for an arm or leg. THIS IS NOT TELEVISION!!!!

Loving-kindness probably isn't a good first response if a dude with a knife is approaching you...

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context