If they don't go down, I can easily picture 10 rounds going out of my gun. You have to break those hits AND the shots into a per officer. Approximately 10 rounds per officer and 5 hits per officer. I didn't hear any complaints about the guy with the carry permit shooting a guy 5 times, why complain about an officer shooting a guy 5 times. The other 5 that missed absolutely do not matter in the use of force spectrum because only hits count. I'm probably preaching to the choir on this point, but this isn't like qualification where you have ten seconds to fire 5 rounds. Real life you have 2 seconds to fire 10, if you even make it to 2 seconds. I read recently that, statistically, if you are in a fight that lasts over 4 seconds, you'd better have made peace with God because your likelihood of surviving is plummeting.

41 rounds may sound excessive, but does shooting a guy 5 times sound excessive? Look at our recent shooting by the permit holder...

Obviuously I am. Hard to say what happened, unless I was attempting to multi-task and reading several threads at once

I understand your point. A stressfire situation requires that you keep shooting until the threat is gone - no question about it. My point is in the judgment leading to that situation.

Suppose four of us were walking out of having coffee together and, while walking down the sidewalk, observed a single individual in our vicinity who then reached for his wallet. With superior numbers on our side, just when do you suppose any jury would feel that we were threatened enough to all draw and fire on the individual? If you can't rationalize that one to judge and jury, then you're saying we should not hold the LEO's to a similar standard than is imposed upon us in terms of judgment and threat assesment. That's the part - before the shooting started - that I have a tough time with.

Unfortunately, I don't recall the details of that incident. We do not, however, have a duty to respond to the situation. The police do. We have a duty to retreat. (I don't like it, but that's what we deal with.) We don't have a duty to deal with a guy that we believe has a gun in his hand. The police do. That explains why they dealt with it.

Having that duty to engage the person who we believe is armed with a handgun, it is a reasonable course of action to draw and point your own handgun at that point. If I recall correctly, they also ordered the person to drop it? The person refused to comply with their command while 4 guns were trained on him, tending to indicate that the person is a "no person". This person also has the opportunity to shoot you. He might not take out the whole group, but he can take out at least 1 before you'll get shots off, if the bullet meets its mark.

So, the subject who I reasonably believed (again, I don't know the specifics, but that would have to be part of the argument) to be armed with a handgun that I had a duty to engage refused to comply with my legal lawful order to drop the weapon.

Again, I don't know the specifics, so I can't do a detailed justification, but overall when you have a duty to act the dynamics change. We shoot to get away from danger. Police shoot both to get away from danger and to remove the danger, and they have a legal duty to do the second one, something that we do not.

Whatever the justification, the outcome was not great for either side. Here are the details on this link, FYI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Dia ... ing_victim)

Since I have learned about Wikipedia, I don't count that source as a very credible source. It can be edited, the originators don't have to have a lot of, if any credibility, and contributors can often convey a message in their "definitions".

We must teach these people when the Police says STOP POLICE you STOP. If you don't you may get hurt or even KILLED. What ficking part of STOP POLICE dont they get.