Great news!

The BS case was thrown out!!!

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2021/08/18/judge-could-decide-soon-whether-hpd-officers-should-face-trial-deadly-shooting-teen/

The cops are free.  Another victory for sanity. 

I feel terrible for the the whole situation.
16 year old kid got a stupid prize for playing a stupid game.
But 8 out of 10 through a rear windshield ?
Instructor?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rejects-charges-hawaii-officers-022834729.html

I feel terrible for the the whole situation.
16 year old kid got a stupid prize for playing a stupid game.
But 8 out of 10 through a rear windshield ?
Instructor?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rejects-charges-hawaii-officers-022834729.html

It was far more than a "stupid game".  Natural selection played its role and the world is probably a better place without him.  That being said,  I think it was justified he was a threat.  Apparently the courts and the grand jury think the same too. 

Missed the point. 

“ 8 out of 10 through a rear windshield ?
Instructor?”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rejects-charges-hawaii-officers-022834729.html

Missed the point. 

“ 8 out of 10 through a rear windshield ?
Instructor?”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rejects-charges-hawaii-officers-022834729.html

The point is the courts decided that one can still be a threat even if the officers are not directly in front of them.  The cops were in the right,  he was armed, dangerous and in progress of a crime.   He could of drove off and ran some innocent kid over.  Shot them through that "rear windshield"  or many other threats.  At least that's my take on the court decision.

If a criminal broke into your house with a gun would you wait till he had a clear shot on you before you defended yourself?

I wonder how many hours of firearms training these officers get?

It was far more than a "stupid game".  Natural selection played its role and the world is probably a better place without him.  That being said,  I think it was justified he was a threat.  Apparently the courts and the grand jury think the same too.

swoosh

The point is the courts decided that one can still be a threat even if the officers are not directly in front of them.  The cops were in the right,  he was armed, dangerous and in progress of a crime.   He could of drove off and ran some innocent kid over.  Shot them through that "rear windshield"  or many other threats.  At least that's my take on the court decision.

If a criminal broke into your house with a gun would you wait till he had a clear shot on you before you defended yourself?

swoosh x2

Missed the point. 

“ 8 out of 10 through a rear windshield ?
Instructor?”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rejects-charges-hawaii-officers-022834729.html

it's not public knowledge who the instructor was
but the truth is out there...

That’s some serious shooting.
I was just wondering if maybe he’s a training officer.
You almost never hear of HPD hitting 8 of 10. Through a windshield no less.

Instructor?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rejects-charges-hawaii-officers-022834729.html

Maybe, or a highly focused officer that takes his training seriously.

Maybe, or a highly focused officer that takes his training seriously.

Many people learn to shoot before entering their current occupation.

Could have been former military, competition shooter, grew up on a farm and shot a lot, avid hunter, recreational shooter, NRA trained instructor, etc., etc.

Never assume that every Cop learned their skills in that job.

The NRA was (reportedly) created because military leaders were appalled at the lack of marksmanship in their enlisted ranks, and training can only bring them up to proficient level over time -- time they may not have during wartime.  Many opportunities to learn to shoot today exist because of that desire to teach shooting skills early in life.