21 plus Hadcuffs?

[JackLuis]

"A Detroit-area imam who died in a shootout with the FBI in October was shot 21 times -- at least once in the back -- and found by police lying down with his wrists in handcuffs behind him, says a local Detroit news report."


Damn he was hard to kill!

 

[OnlyByMoonlight]

That was just a sad story. I'm a proud American, but I know many Muslims from all parts of the world, and they're not all hellbent on destroying America. 95% of them are just trying to get by in a world that has a tainted view of them.

Regardless of whether he was a potential terrorist, petty criminal, or just a peaceful Muslim, no one deserves to be shot 21 times while in handcuffs. That is NOT the American way.

 

[JackLuis]

Should be interesting when, if it comes to trial? Bet there at least three books on the incident in progress as we type.

 

[3113]

"A Detroit-area imam who died in a shootout with the FBI in October was shot 21 timesat least once in the back -- and found by police lying down with his wrists in handcuffs behind him

[nods] That's the way Jack Bauer woulda done it.

 

[R. Richard]

I read the story. The guy who got shot was involved in a shootout with the scumbags. The scumbags arrested four other guys, who, presumably, were not shooting at the scumbags. The guy who got shot, first shot and killed a scumbag dog. Then, shooting guy was shot by the scumbags. I fail to see the problem.

Now, let's cover the amateur assumptions.
1) The guy was shot 21 times, thus he was certainly dead. WRONG!
2) The guy was shot 21 times, thus he was certainly unable to get up and start shooting again. WRONG! (Have you ever heard of a bullet proof vest?)
3) There was no need to cuff the guy who was shot 21 times, because he was of no further danger to the scumbags. WRONG! (When you take a shooting suspect into custody, you ALWAYS cuff the guy.
4) The guy was shot because he was a Muslim. WRONG! The article clearly states that the problem involved stolen property and the guy started shooting. Other guys either didn't shoot or stopped shooting and were taken into custody. Shooter guy was undoubtedly shot because he was shooting and not because of his religion, race or national origin.
5) If involved in a firefight, the scumbags should immediately stop shooting if a shooter turns away. (If you believe this, you need mental help.)

 

[3113]

Now, let's cover the amateur assumptions.
1) The guy was shot 21 times, thus he was certainly dead. WRONG!

Um, no. Right. Article says: "A Detroit-area imam who died in a shootout"
Now you are correct that the people shooting ought not assume he was dead during the shootout, but we can assume that, as his body was found after the shoot-out, dead, with only bullet wounds (so far as we know) to account for this, that he was shot 21 times and died.

What do you think we were assuming wrong there given what the article said?

2) The guy was shot 21 times, thus he was certainly unable to get up and start shooting again. WRONG! (Have you ever heard of a bullet proof vest?)

Um...The people shooting might have to assume he could get up but the medical examiners report says he was shot 21 times and was found dead with hands cuffed behind his back. That bullet proof vest didn't save him from 21 shots.

In other words, the article doesn't say he was shot 21 times but only one bullet got to him thanks to his vest. It says his body had 21 bullet wounds. Again, I don't see how our assumption is wrong. He was shot 21 times. He did die.

3) There was no need to cuff the guy who was shot 21 times, because he was of no further danger to the scumbags. WRONG! (When you take a shooting suspect into custody, you ALWAYS cuff the guy.

So he was cuffed after the shoot-out? Um...I'm sorry, where in the story does it say this? Aren't you making an assumption there?

5) If involved in a firefight, the scumbags should immediately stop shooting if a shooter turns away. (If you believe this, you need mental help.)

Why do you assume we're making that assumption?

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about our assumptions.

 

[rgraham666]

He can't be right all the time if he doesn't.

 

[R. Richard]

Um, no. Right. Article says: "A Detroit-area imam who died in a shootout"
Now you are correct that the people shooting ought not assume he was dead during the shootout, but we can assume that, as his body was found after the shoot-out, dead, with only bullet wounds (so far as we know) to account for this, that he was shot 21 times and died.

What do you think we were assuming wrong there given what the article said?

---------------
First, you need to assume that you're at the scene of said shootout. There's a man, lying on the gorund. He appears to have been shot, maybe more than once (the dead don't bleed much.) He also appears to be dead. However, you're, like the scumbags, not a medical doctor. Thus, as a professional, you don't assume that he's dead, not when he ceases firing, not when his body lies on the ground in front of you. You have clearly made the amateur assumptions that 1) he's dead; 2) he's been shot 21 times; 3) it's over.

Um...The people shooting might have to assume he could get up but the medical examiners report says he was shot 21 times and was found dead with hands cuffed behind his back. That bullet proof vest didn't save him from 21 shots.

-------------
Ah yes, the medical examiner's report. Now let's state how a medical examiner works. The medical examiner works in a clean, well lighted, safe environment with a naked individual, where said medical examiner can PROFESSIONALLY asume that the body is dead. The scumbags work in a noisy, littered, probably not too well lighted, dangerous environment with a clothed individual, where said individual may not be dead and may not have been shot multiple times. In addition, the scumbags are NOT QUALIFIED to determine of the individual is dead. Also, we get back to item 3) from above.

In other words, the article doesn't say he was shot 21 times but only one bullet got to him thanks to his vest. It says his body had 21 bullet wounds. Again, I don't see how our assumption is wrong. He was shot 21 times. He did die.

-------------
Once again, we get back to the point that the scumbags didn't know how many times he was shot. Nor did the scumbags know that the individual was dead. The determination of 21 bullet wounds and death was LATER made by a QUALIFIED (yes, I'm assuming here) medical examiner under ideal conditions. Also, we get back to item 3) from above.

So he was cuffed after the shoot-out? Um...I'm sorry, where in the story does it say this? Aren't you making an assumption there?

---------------
Woweeee! You really caught me here. I mean, there are numerous, recent instances of handcuffed individuals conducting a shootout with the scumbags. I can't come up with and example, but you or Rob certainly can, can't you? In addition, even the scumbags routinely handcuff an individual with hands behind back. Thus the shooting by the individual would have had to be conducted with hands cuffed behind back. Nonetheless, you obviously assume that the individual was able to killl a scumbag dog with his hands cuffed behind his back. Also the majority of bullet wounds would obviously have been in the man's back. None of the necessary assumptions is realistic.

But wait! The scumbags waited until the shooter stopped firing, then shot the guy 21 times and cuffed his hands behind his back. Excuse me, no one has a lower opinion of scumbag intelligence than I do and they aint that dumb. Also, we get back to item 3) from above.

Why do you assume we're making that assumption?

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about our assumptions.

-----------
I believe I have explained why I think that you're making assumptions and why the assumptions you're making are wrong.

I would like to thank Ron for the snide little remark that he made, other than that he can kiss my ass.

Now, we get back to item 3) from above. I charge that you're making the tacit assumption that it's over. If not, why not? If so, why?

 

[3113]

However, you're, like the scumbags, not a medical doctor.

No, I'm not but THE ARTICLE SAID he died in the shoot-out and the MEDICAL EXAMINER said he was shot 21 times and the POLICE said he was found dead with hands cuffed behind his back.

Again. What assumptions are we making wrong if we assumed he died in the shoot-out (what the articles says, NOT what we assume), and that he was shot 21 times (Medical examiner says, not us)? The only assumption I've made is the guy was shot 21 times and died with handcuffs on. That seems to be fact, not assumption.

Woweeee! You really caught me here. I mean, there are numerous, recent instances of handcuffed individuals conducting a shootout with the scumbags.

Wowee! You assume I mean that he participated in the shoot out with hands cuffed behind his back. If you think me that stupid, I wonder why you bother.

The FBI says he didn't surrender, that he was shooting, they shot back, then handcuffed him afterwards. Now, I'm perfectly willing to go along with that scenario--Occams razor and all, it seems likely. But as there's been no investigation, isn't assuming that the FBI's version of what happened is true an assumption? And where do I make any assumption that it's "over". That what's over? Are you on crack again?

 

[JackLuis]

Those were FBI scumbags, RR.

I presume they were shooting .40 S&W (FBI std.) so a couple of hits would have put him down. Now if five or six FBI were confronting him, that means they could have hit him four times each. This is reasonable considering the FBI's reputation for pistol work and the 10 round mag of the S&W.
I wonder how many rounds were expended to get 21 hits?

It takes 2-3 seconds to get four shots off so assuming that he was propped up somehow he could have stood that long particularly if he was being hammered against a wall or something. The one in the back, was probably the last round fired as he slumped and turned falling.

The interesting thing is that the Detroit Police are investigating. If they were pushing a stolen goods charge, why was the FBI involved?

Yes, the FBI would have cuffed him, just to be safe.

21 .40 caliber holes would have had him bleeding pretty good, so CPR would have just made him squirt, a lot.

 

[R. Richard]

Those were FBI scumbags, RR.

I presume they were shooting .40 S&W (FBI std.) so a couple of hits would have put him down. Now if five or six FBI were confronting him, that means they could have hit him four times each. This is reasonable considering the FBI's reputation for pistol work and the 10 round mag of the S&W.
I wonder how many rounds were expended to get 21 hits?

It takes 2-3 seconds to get four shots off so assuming that he was propped up somehow he could have stood that long particularly if he was being hammered against a wall or something. The one in the back, was probably the last round fired as he slumped and turned falling.

The interesting thing is that the Detroit Police are investigating. If they were pushing a stolen goods charge, why was the FBI involved?

Yes, the FBI would have cuffed him, just to be safe.

21 .40 caliber holes would have had him bleeding pretty good, so CPR would have just made him squirt, a lot.

The FBI are indeed superior scumbags. It wouldn't be beyond belief that 21 hits came from 21 rounds or a very few more. As you point out, the bullet in the back doesn't mean that he was 'shot in the back,' but could have just been the end of a fusillade.

The stolen goods could have involved items such as arms stolen from an armory, or some such. The FBI doesn't get involved with normal stolen goods cases, unless it's a big operation and the stuff is being sold out of state.

If the first bullet killed the guy, his heart stops and there's usually very little more bleeding, since there's not much pressure to drive the blood out.

Now, we have this ass hole down on the ground. The FBI are good enough that they know he took a lot of hits. Thus, the chances of the ass hole getting up are slim. HOWEVER, there could still be another ass hole(s) hiding in the warehouse. Thus, the (implicit) idea of the FBI coming out and standing over the ass hole and pumping more bullets into him is insane. Your local scumbags may be insane, the FBI is not. Thus, the FBI most likely went to room-to-room. Now, a warehouse is normally just one or a few large rooms, but stacks of what they call stuff in the warehouse trade can provide the effect of 'rooms.' Thus, it's likely that the cuffs were not put on the ass hole until after the FBI did room-to-room. By the time the FBI did room-to-room, it's very probable that the ass hole could safely be presumed dead. HOWEVER, there's a right way to do things and the FBI does things the FBI way. The FBI way would include cuffing the ass hole, even if he were dead.

So, the initial impact of the news story is EVIL scumbags pumping bullets into a poor, innocent, hadcuffed Muslim. However, the involvement of the FBI means that there is little likelihood that the ass hole was innocent. When you start shooting at the FBI, the FBI shoots back. You might miss, the FBI probably not. As you theorized, the bullet in the back might just be the end of a fusillade. The cuffing of the ass hole is undoubtedly just standard procedure, done at the END of the incident. Thus, the outrage that might result from a casual reading of the article is very probably not justified.

The 21 bullet wounds seem very dramatic. However, it's not at all unlikely that the FBI knew of the count of the bullet wounds, perhaps not even a close estimate. The count would come later, when a medical examiner had time and safe environment to count the bullet wounds.

However, a calm, reasoned approach to the incident doesn't sell papers.

 

[SeaCat]

Nowhere near enough information to make a judgement of any kind on my part.

That being said:

Those books most people read are fiction. One round from a handgun doesn't always do the job. (In fact it rarely does the job no matter how good a shot you are.)

21 rounds into the Imam? That doesn't really surprise me when you consider the number of people shooting and the amount of rounds each was carrying. Think about it, four well trained shooters with ten rounds in their magazines. That's 40 rounds in the air. Oh and you don't stop shooting until the target goes down. So 21 rounds into a person who was shooting at them is not unbelievable.

The Cuffs? You never, never leave a person behind you without securing them unless you want to be dead. (My training was a round to the head, then again I wasn't in Law Enforcement.)

The rounds in the side and the back? Have you ever shot at a hanging target? Maybe a Water Jug? They tend to twist and turn as the rounds hit them. The human body is no different.

As for the shooting being justified? Like I said I haven't seen anywhere near enough information to make a true judgement but the fact that he fired upon the Agents makes me side with them in returning fire.

Cat

 

[R. Richard]

The Cuffs? You never, never leave a person behind you without securing them unless you want to be dead. (My training was a round to the head, then again I wasn't in Law Enforcement.)

Cat

Oh yeah! However, I prefer a double tap to the head.