Edited: (was Oh I'm pissed of now...)

[acroyear]

The original post here was an emotional reaction to a confusing situation, based on incomplete (and certainly incorrect) information and first thoughts. My knowledge of what gorillas normally are like, as reasonably peaceful animals particularly in their native habitats, fell into extreme conflict with the way the situation was described, and so certainly my first reaction was that the "humans" were to blame.

The thread of discussion that follows is pretty educational, both on the situation, and on the different types of counter-arguments to bring rational thought back to correct an emotional impulse.

To whizzrjohn and other police officers, I apologize sincerely for my final comment in the original post. When an officer says in a report or press conference that "there was no other option" (or relatedly, "we did what we were trained to do"), I'll try to be more critical of my own cynicism and skepticism before opening my dumb mouth in being critical of them.

'cause of this example of extreme stupidity and unnecessary violence out of utter ignorance.

Animals just want to be left alone. If its coming your direction, get out of the fucking way. Its that simple. It ain't gonna attack anybody unless you threaten it, or its hungry and you either have, or are, food. If it charged you, its 'cause you intentionally looked threatening to it and you were the stupid one. You don't corner an animal the same way you might corner a person on the run...

I want the SPCA to file a lawsuit against the two cops. Firing 3 shots is signs you panicked, not signs you were being defensive, or asserting that you were "protecting civilians".

Bastards.

Comments

[whizzrjohn.livejournal.com]

Firing 3 shots is signs you panicked, not signs you were being defensive, or asserting that you were "protecting civilians".

Sorry, but you hit a nerve here. This is absolutely incorrect and suggests that you could benefit from a little insight into police work and training.

There is no such thing as a guaranteed one-shot kill or one-shot stop from a handgun or small-caliber rifle round in the real world. The variables that go into degree of penetration and round expansion, contact with vital organs, adrenaline in the subject's system, tolerance for pain, etc. all contribute to the likelihood that one shot will not immediately stop the advance of an agitated attacker, especially a 300 pound one,gorilla or otherwise. That's why police officers have been trained at least since the 1980's to "double-tap", which is a quick two-shot (and in some circumstances, three-shot) burst to follow up the initial impact with a secondary, compounding blow. Firing three shots is not a sign that the officers panicked, it is a sign that they reacted exactly as their training had taught them to. Police officers are trained to shoot to neutralize the threat, not necessarily to kill, and that almost always requires the expenditure of more than one round.

As to your other comments regarding close-range attackers, or those armed with something other than a firearm, I'd be interested to see how you fared in some of the training exercises that simulate those situations. An attacker with a knife or a club is just as deadly as one with a firearm and can cover a distance of fifteen feet to put that weapon to use in less time than it takes for an officer to clear leather, nevermind manage to get off a round or two. Someone closer than that, which is usually the distance for even impolite conversation, poses even more of a threat and is therefore presents even more of an imperative to neutralize as quickly as possible.

If you still think that's "utter garbage" then perhaps you should try walking in my shoes or those of my fellow officers for a while.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

no, i'll stand corrected by a trained professional's position anytime over my own ignorance.

I apologize if I offended.