Police Warning Shots May Be In For A Comeback

[HCM]

If you read the piece, it's almost all quotes from supposed experts, including Mas Ayoob and someone from the IACP. The part about shooting to wound was from someone identified as a police officer and trainer.

Mas gets the last quote:"If a danger ipso facto is that immediate, why are we taking our eyes off the threat and firing a warning shot?" he asks. "If deadly force is justified, deadly force should probably be applied."

I'm not seeing a lot of NPR angst here.

Hayes is not a firearms or even use of force trainer he is a "leadership and philosophy" trainer.

The fact that he is a police officer doesn't tell me much. It certainly doesn't mean he should be commenting about firearms or use of force policy.

[voodoo_man]

Hayes is not a firearms or even use of force trainer he is a "leadership and philosophy" trainer.

The fact that he is a police officer doesn't tell me much. It certainly doesn't mean he should be commenting about firearms or use of force policy.

AKA the good idea fairy.

[HCM]

AKA the good idea fairy.

Yup.

[Totem Polar]

I agree that the article was reasonably well-balanced. That still doesn't explain why the fuck anyone thought it should be a topic for discussion in the first place. Vintage retro should be left for vinyl record enthusiasts and craft cocktail bars. And 1911 owners. Definitely 1911 owners. Not UOF policy. JMO.

[blues]

I agree that the article was reasonably well-balanced. That still doesn't explain why the fuck anyone thought it should be a topic for discussion in the first place. Vintage retro should be left for vinyl record enthusiasts and craft cocktail bars. And 1911 owners. Definitely 1911 owners. Not UOF policy. JMO.

[RevolverRob]

It looks like a pretty well balanced article to me, quoting Ayoob pretty extensively and delving in to the negatives as well.

People just want to talk smack about NPR. It's generally pretty balanced on most issues. They do a nice job trying to delve into the sociocultural sources of various things and they absolutely have some of the best pop-sci coverage out there. I just get tired of talk radio and the constant news updates. There is, for sure, a left slant to their more editorial pieces, but overall, I'd rather listen to NPR than Limpdick...err Limbaugh any day of the week.

[TGS]

People just want to talk smack about NPR. It's generally pretty balanced on most issues. They do a nice job trying to delve into the sociocultural sources of various things and they absolutely have some of the best pop-sci coverage out there. I just get tired of talk radio and the constant news updates. There is, for sure, a left slant to their more editorial pieces, but overall, I'd rather listen to NPR than Limpdick...err Limbaugh any day of the week.

Funny enough, that article is actually a good example of what journalism is supposed to look like.

[NGP]

Heard this on NPR - total ignorance - talking about shooting suspects in the leg to "wound" - I guess NPR is unfamiliar with femoral artery bleeds.

Where I the world did this idea of shooting someone in the leg come from? I hear it from the uninformed so often. Never mind the tactical fallacies there, what about the ethical? If I shot a deer in the leg, it would be considered animal cruelty, what makes it being a human different?

[Peally]

I despise the fact that I pay for those state sponsored a-holes.

[RevolverRob]

I despise the fact that I pay for those state sponsored a-holes.

I'm not a huge supporter of NPR, but this is just stupid. Sorry, it is.

Have you looked at NPR's finances? http://www.npr.org/about-npr/1786607...radio-finances

~14% of operating revenue comes via state and federal grants to NPR. That amounts to ~17.5 million dollars in FY2015. NPR's annual operating expenses amounted to just about 150 million dollars in FY2015. So, state and federal grants cover about 11.6% of NPR's operating expenses and about 14% of NPR's operating revenue for FY2014-2016.

For comparison the annual tax revenue for the United States is ~20% of our GDP. For FY2015 the GDP was ~18 trillion USD, the actual collected amount of tax revenue in FY2015 was ~3,249,000,000,000.00 or 3.25 TRILLION dollars in taxes paid in. So the total money received by NPR in FY2015 was 0.0005%, 5/10,000ths of the total Federal tax revenue for FY2015. Bearing in mind that NPR combines State and Federal funding into a single category, the actual federal cost is even lower.

But if you REALLY feel that way, if you calculate the $17.5 million dollars granted to NPR in FY2015 and divide it by the number of individual (not even corporate) tax payers in FY2015 ~144 million, then we each paid about 12 cents to fund NPR. If you don't want to give your 12 cents next year, that's cool. I'll just donate a quarter and we'll be good.