What gets me is that the use of force being used is technically less lethal than the means they could have very well used that looked to be justifiable. But in using it they will now most likely be sued by a living armed, at the time, perp.
I don't think I consider ramming a guy with a car at high speeds as a less than lethal approach. The expected outcome of that scenario should be death. Also, I'm not sure a lethal response here was justified. You can't justifiably kill a person for threatening their own life, and his having the gun to his own head doesn't immediately threaten anyone elses life. It certainly justifies being within a hairs breath of killing the subject though.
I didn't see it being a suicide in the summary posted here was it that? It states specifically he was headed to a heavily populated area armed. That is justifiable by most tests. The less than lethal is personal opinion. You state that being hit by a car "should" expect the same outcome but in my opinion I do not agree.
I didn't see it being a suicide in the summary posted here was it that? It states specifically he was headed to a heavily populated area armed. That is justifiable by most tests. The less than lethal is personal opinion. You state that being hit by a car "should" expect the same outcome but in my opinion I do not agree.
In the full article one of the quotes says that they weren't worried about de-escalation because the suspect seemed suicidal
I didn't see it being a suicide in the summary posted here was it that? It states specifically he was headed to a heavily populated area armed. That is justifiable by most tests. The less than lethal is personal opinion. You state that being hit by a car "should" expect the same outcome but in my opinion I do not agree.
Deranged person with a gun making threats does justify lethal force. The amount of time it takes someone to go from pointing the gun at themselves to pointing it at other people is nil, and the person is clearly disturbed so you can't assume that just because the person threatened to harm themselves that they won't have a change of heart and decide that suicide by cop is preferable and turn the gun on them, or even more extreme, on some random passerbye.
You think they are getting sued for running this guy over, imagine the lawsuits if they had tried to get some sort of dialogue going and then he shot at bystanders.
Yes, ramming someone with a car is lethal force. It's not "less lethal" than gunfire. People have survived gunshots, falls from high buildings, burning buildings, land mines, being run over or dragged by vehicles, trampled by horses and nearly every other means you could think of to kill someone.
All those things are lethal though. The term "less lethal" is reserved for things that have only a very small chance of causing death, or require unusual circumstances to cause death. Whether someone is more likely to survive a gunshot than a car vrs. pedestrian is academic and not super relevant.
I will say though that these days when the police shoot someone they don't use any sort of trigger discipline, they send a hail of bullets in the general direction of the target, so ramming someone with a car is actually a more controlled use of force than a typical police shooting. But that's not saying ramming people is safe, it's saying that the way cops use their guns is ridiculous.
Walker said he and the other African-American officer in the group, Linwood Norman, were known as "The Twin Towers" and were often assigned by the ringleader, Thomas Liciardello, to rough people up. On one occasion, Walker said, he and Norman extorted a password from a drug dealer by holding him over the railing of a high-rise balcony.
In another episode, Walker said he carried a heavy safe full of drug money down 17 flights of stairs in order to avoid being seen on the elevator security camera. He also described a heist wherein he stuffed so much cash into his police vest that he had to wear another to cover up the bulges. The officers followed Liciardello because he was a "money maker," someone who "produced good jobs,"Walker said. "If a guy is producing jobs and you know he was stealing money, you do what he tells you."
Now 46, Walker admitted he began stealing from crime scenes as a junior patrolman. He worked with the six defendants until 2009, when he turned to alcohol following what he described as a "messy" divorce. He was arrested in 2013 after he broke into a jailed suspect's house in order to steal money and marijuana - only to find out the suspect had been a FBI informant and the whole operation was a sting. He is cooperating with the authorities in order to avoid a life sentence.
I didn't see it being a suicide in the summary posted here was it that? It states specifically he was headed to a heavily populated area armed. That is justifiable by most tests. The less than lethal is personal opinion. You state that being hit by a car "should" expect the same outcome but in my opinion I do not agree.
Can I ask why not? This strikes me as odd.
Let me clarify. You can expect both to result in death and are rightful to do so. I suspect that death rate is much smaller for a low speed car hit compared to multiple center mass gun shot wounds as is trained for by police. Again this is personal and I wasnt using the "less lethal" official term.
That's fair. I still wouldn't really call it "less lethal" because that usually refers to the intention of the tool or technique being used, and I kind of doubt the officers were concerned about whether this guy lived or died, as long as the situation was revolved with no civillian or officer fatalities. As for the situation itself, an armed gunman wielding a stolen rifle headed into a populated area...does not seem like the most unwarranted use of force on part of the police. Hitting him with a car definitely seems more brutal and visceral at first, but is probably more 'safe' in the long run, both for the officers, as well as bystanders had a shootout occurred.
EDIT: To me, this situation in particular belongs more in the Gun Control thread, if there is one anymore. Mentally ill individual steals gun from Walmart, should not have been able to happen.
One of the other articles mentioned that the Walmart employees pursued the guy after he stole the gun which holy shit Walmart does not pay a fraction of what it would take to get me to do that.
One of the other articles mentioned that the Walmart employees pursued the guy after he stole the gun which holy shit Walmart does not pay a fraction of what it would take to get me to do that.
It's also against company policy. Though they probably would hold the employees accountable for the gun, knowing Walmart.
The speed at which the officer hits the guy is excessive, but using his vehicle in that manor was probably the right call to stop him without shooting. The next intersection looked to be pretty busy with cross traffic.
The real question is whether the police had a duty to stop traffic at the next intersection and create a situation where they could talk the guy down. I want to say yes, but the realities of the situation can easily prevent it from happening.
The speed at which the officer hits the guy is excessive, but using his vehicle in that manor was probably the right call to stop him without shooting. The next intersection looked to be pretty busy with cross traffic.
The real question is whether the police had a duty to stop traffic at the next intersection and create a situation where they could talk the guy down. I want to say yes, but the realities of the situation can easily prevent it from happening.
Allow me to point out that by this point the individual in question had:
* Robbed a 7-11 with a "metal object",
* Set fire to a church,
* Broken into a house,
* Stolen a car, and
* Stolen a rifle and ammunition.
I really cannot fault the police too much for seeing him as an imminent threat.
The speed they hit him at certainly looked alarming but when they committed to that tactic they had to ensure they would hit him hard enough to put him down and not have him jump up and open fire.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
The speed at which the officer hits the guy is excessive
I'm sorry what? This motherfucker just went on a rampage and tore ass through town.
The only way I would judge the officers speed excessive is if him utilizing that speed put people who were not the unstable person with a fucking firearm in danger. Honestly, utilizing their guns in this instance would be totally justifiable.
+5
Options
AlazullYour body is not a temple, it's an amusement park.Enjoy the ride.Registered Userregular
The speed at which the officer hits the guy is excessive, but using his vehicle in that manor was probably the right call to stop him without shooting. The next intersection looked to be pretty busy with cross traffic.
The real question is whether the police had a duty to stop traffic at the next intersection and create a situation where they could talk the guy down. I want to say yes, but the realities of the situation can easily prevent it from happening.
Allow me to point out that by this point the individual in question had:
* Robbed a 7-11 with a "metal object",
* Set fire to a church,
* Broken into a house,
* Stolen a car, and
* Stolen a rifle and ammunition.
I really cannot fault the police too much for seeing him as an imminent threat.
You really have to be surprised they didn't shoot him. After the rifle being stolen, they have every reason to believe that he is a clear and present threat to any civilian in the area, and at that point you have every reason to shoot him instead of trying to talk him down first.
I like the idea of ramming him, as it give a chance at him living, solved the problem of potentially being out ranged and also cut out the chance of civilians being caught in the crossfire of any potential shootout.
User name Alazull on Steam, PSN, Nintenders, Epic, etc.
The speed at which the officer hits the guy is excessive, but using his vehicle in that manor was probably the right call to stop him without shooting. The next intersection looked to be pretty busy with cross traffic.
The real question is whether the police had a duty to stop traffic at the next intersection and create a situation where they could talk the guy down. I want to say yes, but the realities of the situation can easily prevent it from happening.
Allow me to point out that by this point the individual in question had:
* Robbed a 7-11 with a "metal object",
* Set fire to a church,
* Broken into a house,
* Stolen a car, and
* Stolen a rifle and ammunition.
I really cannot fault the police too much for seeing him as an imminent threat.
You really have to be surprised they didn't shoot him. After the rifle being stolen, they have every reason to believe that he is a clear and present threat to any civilian in the area, and at that point you have every reason to shoot him instead of trying to talk him down first.
I like the idea of ramming him, as it give a chance at him living, solved the problem of potentially being out ranged and also cut out the chance of civilians being caught in the crossfire of any potential shootout.
Listening to his lawyer, you just want to say "You do realize that your client just engaged in a low rent remake of Falling Down, right?"
The speed at which the officer hits the guy is excessive
I'm sorry what? This motherfucker just went on a rampage and tore ass through town.
The only way I would judge the officers speed excessive is if him utilizing that speed put people who were not the unstable person with a fucking firearm in danger. Honestly, utilizing their guns in this instance would be totally justifiable.
The speed wasn't unwarranted, agreed, but it was excessive. You don't need to go fast enough to send a guy cartwheeling through the air to do what the officer intended. It's excessive in the sense of running up the score in football.
Let me clear, I do not think the officer or the departments actions in this instance were wrong, but I don't think they were right. Problem is, the only right solution was taking him into custody without gross bodily harm and that solution was a fairy tale with these circumstances.
And unless he lowered the rifle from his chin, firearms were not warranted. Until he points it at someone, or makes a motion of doing so, he isn't a deadly threat to the police or the public. Simply holding the gun, even pointed at his head, doesn't cross that line unless you're willing to sat the shooting of John Crawford III was a valid use of force because he was, as the police were told, holding a firearm.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
What are officers supposed to do with a man in an open area shooting a rifle, that's less lethal than that?
It's certainly an unconventional solution, but unless you're going to wait around for an MRAP (which has its own problems) or SWAT snipers, I'm not sure there's great options. You're not going to run up to a man with a rifle and try to taze them. What else could you try?
Just "wait and see what happens"?
I recall an episode of one of those US cops shows that I watched years ago.
It was a cleary upset guy in the suburb where he lived, and he had a silver revolver.
He was walking around in circle threatening to shoot himself, other people, the cops etc. then sitting down with his head in his hands, before getting up and pacing around again.
The cops cleared the area, surrounded the man, and then spent several hours trying to talk him down, with him getting more agitated.
Finally, when he sat down again one of the snipers took a shot at the handgun he held. Luckily it hit the gun, and the guy was swarmed by police and arrested. If that shot missed, they had other snipers and police that could then shoot the guy.
I'm not saying it's comparable with this situation of course. Just that for the longest time my impression of the police was that they did whatever they could to ensure the safety of others and the suspect.
Additonal aside: The police sniper was really proud of his shot.
It cannot both be warranted and excessive. It can be unwarranted but not excessive (a cop may detain you unwarranted but not pay hands on you so force was not excessive) but by definition any excessive force is unwarranted
I remember that shot. It was worthy of being proud of if you have ever shot a firearm from a distance. But that circumstance and this one are not really comparable.
Just looking at the video, they had the situation under control until that crazy person decided to ram.
Sure, the subject was armed. But he was on foot in what looked like an area without bystanders and the cops had every exit locked off. There was opportunity to talk him down.
And honestly, the cop talking was doing the right thing. When the perp fired a shot in the air he informed the others that the gun was definitely loaded but that he didn't "shoot" (ie, shot at someone), telling them to stay off.
You can hear his annoyance when he goes "OH! Jesus Christ. Man down" after the other car (driven by the Clint Eastwood wannabe) rams the perp.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
+3
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I remember that shot. It was worthy of being proud of if you have ever shot a firearm from a distance. But that circumstance and this one are not really comparable.
It's not really, and I mentioned it in my post.
It's just an example of the standard that I believe the police should (and apparently can) operate.
Those officers did a lot to try and ensure that everybody had a chance to walk away alive (even if it put them at greater risk), instead of just immediately eliminating the threat.
From what information I have available on the car incident they escalated to the latter scenario too quickly. I can't agree that they handled it correctly.
One thing I would like to see more of is the use of drones in a similar vein to police choppers. Cops behave better when they know they are being filmed, and even if someone shoots and runs, it wouldn't be far fetched that if they are in a drone's grid they won't be eluding law enforcement. Plus, despite what futurama says I don't see robots beating up suspects anytime soon.
If a cop pulls over someone for legitimately speeding, then spends the next ten minutes buzzing his car's integrated drone over a suburb to make sure nothing is going on rather than driving through that suburb and making a stop to check a man's car for drugs... well I imagine even the worst case scenario would end better for everyone. We'd get less shooting and more meme of fat police creeping on ladie's windows with drones.
Drones are not going to happen for any kind of mass requirement. I say this as someone who has explored the options for commercial and legal reasons for weeks and weeks and months and months. It's a fun promotion and a gimmick but you just can't have shitty little helicopters flying around in a public space until you can prove they are perfect - and they won't ever be.
The speed at which the officer hits the guy is excessive, but using his vehicle in that manor was probably the right call to stop him without shooting. The next intersection looked to be pretty busy with cross traffic.
The real question is whether the police had a duty to stop traffic at the next intersection and create a situation where they could talk the guy down. I want to say yes, but the realities of the situation can easily prevent it from happening.
Allow me to point out that by this point the individual in question had:
* Robbed a 7-11 with a "metal object",
* Set fire to a church,
* Broken into a house,
* Stolen a car, and
* Stolen a rifle and ammunition.
I really cannot fault the police too much for seeing him as an imminent threat.
I concur my biggest question about the method used to take him down was it needlessly endangered the officer involved. Had the suspect realized what the cop intended to do a second earlier he could have easily side stepped the police and then the officer would have been wrecked in an immobile car a few feet away from a dangerous suspect basically helpless.
The only problem I can think of in the cop ramming the dude thing is whether it is 'cruel and unusual,' but otherwise he's technically entirely justified.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
The only problem I can think of in the cop ramming the dude thing is whether it is 'cruel and unusual,' but otherwise he's technically entirely justified.
The only problem I can think of in the cop ramming the dude thing is whether it is 'cruel and unusual,' but otherwise he's technically entirely justified.
It's definitely unusual.
Not a punishment in the legal sense. It was only done to subdue him.
If a court sentenced him to being hit by a car you might have something.
The only problem I can think of in the cop ramming the dude thing is whether it is 'cruel and unusual,' but otherwise he's technically entirely justified.
It's definitely unusual.
Not a punishment in the legal sense. It was only done to subdue him.
If a court sentenced him to being hit by a car you might have something.
The speed at which the officer hits the guy is excessive, but using his vehicle in that manor was probably the right call to stop him without shooting. The next intersection looked to be pretty busy with cross traffic.
The real question is whether the police had a duty to stop traffic at the next intersection and create a situation where they could talk the guy down. I want to say yes, but the realities of the situation can easily prevent it from happening.
Allow me to point out that by this point the individual in question had:
* Robbed a 7-11 with a "metal object",
* Set fire to a church,
* Broken into a house,
* Stolen a car, and
* Stolen a rifle and ammunition.
I really cannot fault the police too much for seeing him as an imminent threat.
Don't forget he fired the rifle in public right in front of the first officer. He should have attempted to end the situation right there. At that point he was already a clear threat to the innocent people around him, was ignoring commands from police, and needed to be stopped. Had he turned the gun on a civilian the officer in the car could not have responded in time, innocent people could have been killed, and you would have an officer on the national news explaining it is typically the policy of police to end the standoff when a suspect becomes that much of a threat to others.
From wiki:
In the United States, the use of deadly force is often granted to law enforcement officers when the person or people in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. For example, an armed man flaunting a firearm in a shopping mall without regard to the safety of those around him, and refusing or being unwilling to negotiate, would warrant usage of deadly force, as a means to protect others. The use of deadly force is also authorized when a person poses a significant threat to a law enforcement officer, usually when the officer is at risk of serious bodily injury or death. This is governed by the Tennessee v. Garner ruling in 1985 in which the U.S. Supreme Court said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." This case abolished the Fleeing felon rule where a fleeing felon who posed no immediate threat to society (e.g., a burglar) could be shot if he/she refused to halt.
I'm not certain how close that is to the letter of the law, but if it's even in the same ballpark... Edit: gah, what am I doing? Here is the legalese:
Just looking at the video, they had the situation under control until that crazy person decided to ram.
Sure, the subject was armed. But he was on foot in what looked like an area without bystanders and the cops had every exit locked off. There was opportunity to talk him down.
And honestly, the cop talking was doing the right thing. When the perp fired a shot in the air he informed the others that the gun was definitely loaded but that he didn't "shoot" (ie, shot at someone), telling them to stay off.
You can hear his annoyance when he goes "OH! Jesus Christ. Man down" after the other car (driven by the Clint Eastwood wannabe) rams the perp.
You want to know how far away that gun can kill someone peeking out their window?
Posts
In the full article one of the quotes says that they weren't worried about de-escalation because the suspect seemed suicidal
Can I ask why not? This strikes me as odd.
You think they are getting sued for running this guy over, imagine the lawsuits if they had tried to get some sort of dialogue going and then he shot at bystanders.
Yes, ramming someone with a car is lethal force. It's not "less lethal" than gunfire. People have survived gunshots, falls from high buildings, burning buildings, land mines, being run over or dragged by vehicles, trampled by horses and nearly every other means you could think of to kill someone.
All those things are lethal though. The term "less lethal" is reserved for things that have only a very small chance of causing death, or require unusual circumstances to cause death. Whether someone is more likely to survive a gunshot than a car vrs. pedestrian is academic and not super relevant.
I will say though that these days when the police shoot someone they don't use any sort of trigger discipline, they send a hail of bullets in the general direction of the target, so ramming someone with a car is actually a more controlled use of force than a typical police shooting. But that's not saying ramming people is safe, it's saying that the way cops use their guns is ridiculous.
Let me clarify. You can expect both to result in death and are rightful to do so. I suspect that death rate is much smaller for a low speed car hit compared to multiple center mass gun shot wounds as is trained for by police. Again this is personal and I wasnt using the "less lethal" official term.
EDIT: To me, this situation in particular belongs more in the Gun Control thread, if there is one anymore. Mentally ill individual steals gun from Walmart, should not have been able to happen.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
It's also against company policy. Though they probably would hold the employees accountable for the gun, knowing Walmart.
The real question is whether the police had a duty to stop traffic at the next intersection and create a situation where they could talk the guy down. I want to say yes, but the realities of the situation can easily prevent it from happening.
Allow me to point out that by this point the individual in question had:
* Robbed a 7-11 with a "metal object",
* Set fire to a church,
* Broken into a house,
* Stolen a car, and
* Stolen a rifle and ammunition.
I really cannot fault the police too much for seeing him as an imminent threat.
I'm sorry what? This motherfucker just went on a rampage and tore ass through town.
The only way I would judge the officers speed excessive is if him utilizing that speed put people who were not the unstable person with a fucking firearm in danger. Honestly, utilizing their guns in this instance would be totally justifiable.
You really have to be surprised they didn't shoot him. After the rifle being stolen, they have every reason to believe that he is a clear and present threat to any civilian in the area, and at that point you have every reason to shoot him instead of trying to talk him down first.
I like the idea of ramming him, as it give a chance at him living, solved the problem of potentially being out ranged and also cut out the chance of civilians being caught in the crossfire of any potential shootout.
Listening to his lawyer, you just want to say "You do realize that your client just engaged in a low rent remake of Falling Down, right?"
The speed wasn't unwarranted, agreed, but it was excessive. You don't need to go fast enough to send a guy cartwheeling through the air to do what the officer intended. It's excessive in the sense of running up the score in football.
Let me clear, I do not think the officer or the departments actions in this instance were wrong, but I don't think they were right. Problem is, the only right solution was taking him into custody without gross bodily harm and that solution was a fairy tale with these circumstances.
And unless he lowered the rifle from his chin, firearms were not warranted. Until he points it at someone, or makes a motion of doing so, he isn't a deadly threat to the police or the public. Simply holding the gun, even pointed at his head, doesn't cross that line unless you're willing to sat the shooting of John Crawford III was a valid use of force because he was, as the police were told, holding a firearm.
I recall an episode of one of those US cops shows that I watched years ago.
It was a cleary upset guy in the suburb where he lived, and he had a silver revolver.
He was walking around in circle threatening to shoot himself, other people, the cops etc. then sitting down with his head in his hands, before getting up and pacing around again.
The cops cleared the area, surrounded the man, and then spent several hours trying to talk him down, with him getting more agitated.
Finally, when he sat down again one of the snipers took a shot at the handgun he held. Luckily it hit the gun, and the guy was swarmed by police and arrested. If that shot missed, they had other snipers and police that could then shoot the guy.
I'm not saying it's comparable with this situation of course. Just that for the longest time my impression of the police was that they did whatever they could to ensure the safety of others and the suspect.
Additonal aside: The police sniper was really proud of his shot.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Just looking at the video, they had the situation under control until that crazy person decided to ram.
Sure, the subject was armed. But he was on foot in what looked like an area without bystanders and the cops had every exit locked off. There was opportunity to talk him down.
And honestly, the cop talking was doing the right thing. When the perp fired a shot in the air he informed the others that the gun was definitely loaded but that he didn't "shoot" (ie, shot at someone), telling them to stay off.
You can hear his annoyance when he goes "OH! Jesus Christ. Man down" after the other car (driven by the Clint Eastwood wannabe) rams the perp.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
It's not really, and I mentioned it in my post.
It's just an example of the standard that I believe the police should (and apparently can) operate.
Those officers did a lot to try and ensure that everybody had a chance to walk away alive (even if it put them at greater risk), instead of just immediately eliminating the threat.
From what information I have available on the car incident they escalated to the latter scenario too quickly. I can't agree that they handled it correctly.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Drones are not going to happen for any kind of mass requirement. I say this as someone who has explored the options for commercial and legal reasons for weeks and weeks and months and months. It's a fun promotion and a gimmick but you just can't have shitty little helicopters flying around in a public space until you can prove they are perfect - and they won't ever be.
Steam: adamjnet
I concur my biggest question about the method used to take him down was it needlessly endangered the officer involved. Had the suspect realized what the cop intended to do a second earlier he could have easily side stepped the police and then the officer would have been wrecked in an immobile car a few feet away from a dangerous suspect basically helpless.
Joe's only doing that because he figures the vegan meals will taste worse and cost less.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's definitely unusual.
Not a punishment in the legal sense. It was only done to subdue him.
If a court sentenced him to being hit by a car you might have something.
A pay per view event?
Probably likely even in the world where that was a sentence handed out.
Don't forget he fired the rifle in public right in front of the first officer. He should have attempted to end the situation right there. At that point he was already a clear threat to the innocent people around him, was ignoring commands from police, and needed to be stopped. Had he turned the gun on a civilian the officer in the car could not have responded in time, innocent people could have been killed, and you would have an officer on the national news explaining it is typically the policy of police to end the standoff when a suspect becomes that much of a threat to others.
From wiki:
In the United States, the use of deadly force is often granted to law enforcement officers when the person or people in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. For example, an armed man flaunting a firearm in a shopping mall without regard to the safety of those around him, and refusing or being unwilling to negotiate, would warrant usage of deadly force, as a means to protect others. The use of deadly force is also authorized when a person poses a significant threat to a law enforcement officer, usually when the officer is at risk of serious bodily injury or death. This is governed by the Tennessee v. Garner ruling in 1985 in which the U.S. Supreme Court said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." This case abolished the Fleeing felon rule where a fleeing felon who posed no immediate threat to society (e.g., a burglar) could be shot if he/she refused to halt.
I'm not certain how close that is to the letter of the law, but if it's even in the same ballpark... Edit: gah, what am I doing? Here is the legalese:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deadly+Force
You want to know how far away that gun can kill someone peeking out their window?
You know that part where you think it can't get worse? That part where even the more cynical of us think it's as bad as it's going to get? Yeah...