Previous Post
Next Post

Vonderrit Myers Jr. showing off his handguns on social media (courtesy

The post-mortem on the recent fatal officer-involved shooting of Vonderrit Myers Jr. in St. Louis continues. We now learn that Mr. Myers was tooled up and proud of it before his fatal encounter with a St. Louis cop. Brian Millikan, the attorney for the officer who shot Myers, seems to have something of a slam-dunk in this case. But maybe not. “Millikan said the officer was at the bottom of a hill and forced to get down,” reports. “Millikan explained why his client fired 17 shots. He said, ‘Part of those rounds were suppression rounds to try to get the suspect to stop shooting at him.  So the way it was described to me is the policeman’s got his gun up here, he’s down trying to avoid fire coming at him and his gun is raised slightly above his head, shooting up at back up at the suspect.’” The cop involved is a Marine, FYI. But that doesn’t change the question: is suppressive fire OK for police?

Previous Post
Next Post


      • I tend to support this too, certainly if the officer(s) present have time to logically think it through, I would expect them to do that…but once someone’s shooting at you, I’d say pretty much all bets are off. Now it is necessary to do whatever has to be done to stop them.

        • I’d tend to agree with you, and give the benefit of the doubt to the law enforcement officer, especially in such a high pressure situation, except for two reasons.

          One, “Know your target and what is behind it” Firing up a hill in a suppressive manner can potentially cause random chunks of lead to land somewhere well downrange. Where? no one knows. What’s there? no idea.

          Two, you and I both know that warning shots and suppressive fire are both tactics that would land us with jail time if the phrases were even uttered at OUR hearings. We know that the cops and prosecutors would speak of our wanton destructive rampage and casual disregard for human life.

      • In this instance, I disagree. From the description of the video, the officer was not aiming at least for some shots. He is described as holding his gun over his head and firing. This was a populated residential area. If you can’t see where you’re shooting, you cannot shoot. Worse yet, the officer had the low ground and he was shooting UP toward his attacker.

        The officer survived being shot at 3 times. Uninjured? However, there is no discussion about how many times the attacker was hit or if there was an accounting for the impact of all 17 rounds fired by the officer.

        The article does not state specifically if the officer in the article actually shot the attacker. It just says shot by police. There are other issues with the report that seem suspect however this may just be poor reporting.

        There is a consequence disparity between law enforcement (government) and persons other than law enforcement. If someone other than law enforcement took the same actions, would the legal or criminal outcome be the same? My opinion is law enforcement or government must face the same consequences for their actions in the same terms for those same actions as a non government or non law enforcement citizens would.

        There must be one standard where law, civil rights and other such concepts are concerned.

    • Being shot at is a intense situation. Suppressive fire, misses warning shots it doesn’t matter what you call it. Any time you fire your weapon you need to be aware of the backdrop. If you have a earthbearm behind the threat then by all means shoot has much as you need to. But if its a daycare then best to either stay down, under cover, until you have a good shot.

      • Bingo. It’s completely situationally dependent. As a cop, and even as a citizen in a defensive situation, you need to exercise good judgment under stress. Don’t utilize suppressive fire in Times Square, because there is a high likelihood of seriously injuring a bystander. When serving a high-risk warrant in the desert wilderness, the risk of injuring a bystander is low and it’s probably a technique worth utilizing if you believe it will increase the chances of you making it out of the situation safe and intact.

    • Agreed.
      No ‘suppressive fire’ in highly populated areas though. Too much of a risk of hitting someone you can’t see (know what’s beyond your target, right?)

      • Urban area have lots of concrete walls, freeway support columns, dirt berms, etc. which make decent bullet backstops. There’s no reason why non-LEOs can’t use the same. At least, there shouldn’t be.

        • They also have lots of windows in ground-floor apartments. It all depends on the situation, but I lean towards suppressing fire being acceptable only if (a) the officer is unable to take cover and call for backup, (b) the suspect’s fire is in danger of hitting someone besides the officer, or (c) there is minimal risk of the officer hitting a bystander near the suspect.

  1. No, the object of suppressing fire is not to stop the threat. As a police officer the only time you should be shooting your weapon is to stop a deadly threat to yourself or someone else. You are not in a firefight in Kandahar. Suppressing fire can be very inaccurate, especially when you aren’t even looking at what you are shooing as seems to be the case here. Collateral damage is unacceptable.

    • And what was the “collateral damage” in this instance?

      That one is responsible for where one’s bullets end up does not change the calculus for the inherent justification for the bullets to be fired in the first place.

    • Ok. Let’s say you’re the first officer on the scene and a suspect has a rifle and firing it at anyone on the street. You’ve pulled up where, because the balcony is above you, you can’t get a clear shot. Do you fire in an attempt to get the shooter to stop, retreat off the balcony? Or do you just sit there.

        • No. Everyone who shot a the murderer in the Texas Tower was trying to neutralize the threat. He was in cover so they missed but no one was shooting at the “building” or at the air. They were all shooting at him.

          Unarmed fire, nicknamed “suppressive fire”, has no protection from the law of self-defense. It is nothing but a cute misnomer for reckless discharge and a crime in most states.

    • I don’t think you’ve fully thought this through: Suppose you had an innocent person or another officer pinned down, and maybe injured and bleeding out; are you saying you wouldn’t be justified in suppressive fire to keep the shooter’s head down while that person was extracted? Of course you would. And if you could do it then, why not to enable another officer to gain a better tactical position? Or any other purpose that would facilitate resolving the situation. Obviously, you wouldn’t fire at all if there was any chance of hitting someone else, unless there were no other choice – but I can think of many scenarios where suppressive fire would not only be appropriate, but the best option.

    • There’s a temporary and permanent stopping of a threat. In this case suppressive fire may might work to temporarily stop the threat. If officers can only ‘permanently’ stop a threat then they’ll need to land a coup d’grace after every shooting.

  2. Once the fight’s on, there are only winners and losers. There is no right and wrong. There is no fair and unfair. There are no rules. The aftermath only matters if you live long enough to experience it.

    • Great quote, had to put this one in my “things people say on TTAG I should remember” list in on my desktop notes.

    • @Kevin Turner

      There are *always* rules, of which you will learn very quickly if someone other than the threat is struck and injured by any of your rounds.

      • If my choice is between some potential injury to a non-combatant, and placing my self at more risk, I know where my moral compass points. I would rather chance being carried by six than judged by twelve for having inadvertently killed a bystander. Spray and pray is not a viable option in an urban environment.

        That said, I’m sure there are (very limited) scenarios where the situation left no options, and it seemed ‘safe’ at the time.

    • Bull.

      Unlike soldiers at war (and often, even with soldiers at war), the Police’s first priority is to protect the public even at risk of their own lives. There are situations where immediate, unaimed fire meant to force a retreat might be called for, but they have a responsibility and a duty to not cause more harm to the public than the criminal.

      If a criminal takes a hostage and starts shooting at an officer, should he open fire ignoring the hostage, or take cover and call for backup?

      • Shoot the hostage, duh.

        But that’s a different situation. While I’m leery of suppressive fire in an urban environment the ‘rules’ (like plans) change when lead starts flying past your head.

        • But that’s why you need the rules in the first place – because once the lead starts flying (and usually before), chaos reigns. Life being what it is, there will always be exceptions, but simply knowing the rules in advance, and training according to those rules, helps increase the chance you behave within those boundaries when sheer instinct tells you to start spraying fire.

          I don’t expect police (or a CCW holder) to behave perfectly in a chaotic, life-or-death situation. But to say that all the rules get thrown out the window once bullets start flying goes too far in the opposite direction – there have to be boundaries on acceptable behavior even within the sheer terror of a firefight.

          It depends on the exact layout of the area, but shooting blindly (gun over your head from behind a barrier, as it’s described in the article) in a residential area seems to lie well outside those boundaries, even if no bystander managed to get hurt.

  3. Yes.

    This question is inane navel-gazing to the point of not needing a response. When deadly force is justified, that justification extends to the extent that the force is needed to stop the threat.

    Perhaps a better question would be: would non-LEO be extended the same application of justification of the use of deadly force? Outside of force used when resisting lawful arrest, the justification for use of deadly force does not change due to the presence or absence of a badge. This officer was clearly justified based on the circumstances, and you or I should be likewise justified under the same circumstances.

    Meyers got what he deserved. He started shooting at someone, and that someone returned fire and killed him. I fail to understand why the analysis needs to go any deeper than that.

  4. Is It OK for a Cop to Shoot Suppressive Fire?


    To save his life or another’s from a legitimate threat he can use a flamethrower, same as you or me.

  5. Yes, as long as no innocent bystanders are injured or killed. Because that’s reserved for no-knock raids on the wrong house.

    The cop was in a gunfight. He’s entitled to return fire, and suppressive fire is intended to stop the threat, at least temporarily.

  6. Come on man. This is a little too anti-blue. Would you fire to suppress if you thought it would save your life in a defensive gun use? Of course you would. Why can’t the officer? Arm chair gunfighting at it’s worst.

      • That’s your extrapolation. If a CCW’er let loose a mag and was strung up by LEO’s for “firing more rounds than necessary”, it would be a F the police circle wank around here. Ask yourself if this question would be framed up the way it was if it was a regular joe doing the shooting here. I doubt TTAG would ask that question then. There is a measure of bias at play here.

        • Really? It looked like just a question to me. But I can understand your reluctance to question authority.

      • Ah yes, “Just Asking Questions”…

        Did you stop beating your wife?

        Although in this case I think any anti-blue bias could have been avoided by simply saying “can someone defending themselves in a gunfight use suppressive fire?”

  7. Kind of a pointless question. Once the exchange begins it’s just bullets back and forth. Who’s to say what suppression and what’s just misses? If intentional suppression is decided upon as a tactic it is still done with the purpose of stopping the threat (the other guys bullets) from coming toward you.

  8. I say no. A cop is a servant of the people, and this action puts their lives at risk. In this particular case, however, he was not a cop, he was off duty, so his actions are perfectly acceptable. On duty they would not be, and he would also not be all alone defending his own life.

  9. Yes. If the bad guy is shooting and you’re shooting back, it’s not suppressive fire. What’s the point of having a standard cap mag if you don’t use it when your life is at stake?

    This was a perfect example of when SWAT should have been deployed. Shots actually fired and good guys under threat. Were they too busy raiding a pot dealer to worry about a deadly threat to one of their own?

    • Maybe I misunderstand the situation or something, but from what I read, this wasn’t exactly something the officer anticipated going down in this manner. So why no SWAT? Time… Just like with their response to a call from anyone for help, SWAT teams are still restricted to living in the real world and cannot appar out of thin air in the middle of a shootout. The reality is the same in this case even for police officers; when seconds count…

  10. My immediate thought is that suppression fire is fine for anyone who is legally justified to use deadly force for self-defense … as long their rounds do not injure any bystanders.

    • Agree. suppressive fire wouldn’t be justified, if, it’s noon and there’s a crowded restaurant right behind the perp. That would be unreasonable, but barring something like that, suppressive fire may be tactically necessary.

  11. As long as he is responsible for the consequences of where the bullets wind up, to the same extent as anybody else would be, and behaves accordingly (e.g. like not firing blindly in a street full of uninvolved passers-by), I don’t see why not.

  12. I’m perfectly on with it, so long as you still maintain the rules of gun safety; in this instance it falls under “be sure of your target and what is beyond it.” If a cop is laying down suppressive fire but a family of 5 is in the apartment behind the target then obviously there is a problem there.

      • This isn’t a 3rd world war zone, blindly firing a firearm for suppression reasons or otherwise is going full retard. If that cop was “intentionally” laying down suppressive fire, he damn straight better have been aware where those bullets were going.

  13. Guy was an ex marine, my guess is when lead started flying his training and muscle memory took over. I doubt the local PD is teaching spray and pray/ suppressive fire to their officers. This is just the media are just coming to the realization that the officer was 1000% justified in shooting this stellar example of an oxygen thief and they still want to bring him down so they will probably try to say he was being negligent or something.

    • Last time I checked with any Marine’s they weren’t trained to fire blindly over a barricade. Nor where they told that doing so while remaining where you are at is a winning tactic.

      He would have been better off not explaining his round count, and just saying it was a firefight…or rather his lawyer should not try to elaborate about a subject he isn’t familiar with.

    • At least in Stockton, as here, there was no question as to identity and the need to stop the viciously violent relentlessly unstoppable thugs, unlike the over reactive negligent, premature actions by LA Coppers in the Dorner example below.

      Sometimes due to the ambiguity of violent felon initiated incidents there are unavoidable casualties resulting from necessary police response brought on by the ongoing actions of murderous felon(s) themselves.

    • @v v , that wasn’t suppressive fire, it was aimed fire, for effect. Unfortunately for the hostage, the effect of such damn sh!tty shooting was to make her dead.

      In this case, nobody got dead except the perpetrator. Which is a good thing.

  14. Well, is it ok for YOU/ME? Then it’s ok for the police. If dude was shooting at me, I’d feel justified in dumping my mag if it saved my life. Whatta bout you?

  15. Situation-dependant. Certainly if there is a good chance that suppressing fire would hit an innocent bystander, it would not be justified. If, however, there is a good reason to expect that the only person(s) threatened by that action are shooting at you, by all means go ahead. Everything I have heard to date in this case suggests the officer was justified in his actions.

  16. You can’t deliver real suppressive fire with a pistol, but quickly throwing some low-percentage shots to get the other guy’s head down can be a valid tactic IMO. It depends a lot on what’s downrange.

    • You can’t deliver real suppressive fire with a pistol, but quickly throwing some low-percentage shots to get the other guy’s head down can be a valid tactic IMO.

      In the first half of your sentence, you said suppressive fire isn’t possible with a pistol. The second half describes suppressive fire and says it’s okay.

      Suppression: I don’t think it means what you think it means.

  17. What was behind the perp up the hill? Were there others around? If the risk of collateral damage was minimal, then suppressive fire is perfectly fine. As long as his backstop was clear, let er rip.

  18. I don’t want to see suppressive fire become a “go to” or an encouraged tactic for normal police work but in this instance I see no fault with it. I would not support suppressive fire if it was used preemptively (as in “suppress the house” so SWAT can make entry), but in this case he was already under fire so retuning fire was plenty justified (doubly so if the shooter had high ground over his position as reported).

    That being said, I don’t want to open the door for other cops to use the “I was using suppressive fire” as an excuse for shooting innocents (see 2012 Empire State Bldg shooting). I suspect Millikan client was lucky, well trained and likely a better shot then your average cop so this shouldn’t become a standard procedure.

    I would be interested to know if his use of suppressive fire resulted in strikes on target or if the suppressive fire allowed for movement in to a better field of fire. To me it’s a “good” shooting if the suppressive fire resulted in strikes on target, if the office was able to move and then deliver effective rounds on target I need a little more info to call it “good”, either way I wish the lawyer had not used the term and I suspect the next cop that tries it won’t have the positioning or accuracy not to hit innocents.

  19. NO. Reason….define suppressive fire. My understanding is suppressive fire is is used to keep the the bad guys head down….WHILE your supporting element is maneuvering to make the shot. If your solo, suppressive fire means you’re flinging rounds downtown. In the end F all that….tell the councilman or investiagtor….sure I used 17 rounds…what’s your point?

    • You can give suppressive-fire for yourself. But the point is moot unless you are yourself moving to a better vantage/cover – which this guy wasn’t. Also, whether or not this guy thought he was giving suppressive-fire is obviated entirely by the fact that he was not looking at what/where he was shooting. So what he was actually doing was panicking.

  20. I think the concept of a “missed shot” is a variant of suppressive fire. Intention being a irrelevant

    The consequences of where the bullets finally end up, dictates the acceptability of this question. If the “spray and pray” ends with no unintended injuries, it is acceptable. Bystanders injured would obviously be grounds to review criminal persecution.

    After all, YOU are responsible for YOUR shots.

  21. I think the officer misspoke.
    I think he meant to say he missed with the first few shots. “It was difficult to get the proper sight picture, what with him shooting at me and all.”
    I would not use suppressive fire.
    I might miss a few times.
    The way I read the definition of (and from listening to a Marine friend whose job was to provide) suppressive fire, there’s no difference between “missing” and “suppressive fire.”
    I grant that “Just Win, Baby.” is the goal, but you must win the after-shoot as well.
    May a civilian use suppressive fire in the same situation? (I don’t know, but I guess “no.” If “no” for civilian, then “no” for cop.)
    May a civilian miss? Yes. And the civilian is responsible for the end result of every round. Same goes for a cop.
    (If lucky, the misses would hit a tree, engine block, earth berm, or the like.)
    P.S. It’s good if the tree is NOT a hickory. From personal experience.

  22. Um…if you are the only cop and you are on the ground, ie. not moving, while firing over your cover, then you are not giving suppressive-fire. You are blindly wasting ammo and accomplishing nothing but potentially hurting innocents. You are not in a battle field and those shots need to be aimed and accounted for.

    So, its an interesting topic of discussion, but this isn’t an example of the topic.

  23. Of course, but like everyone else, they must be held responsible for the results. In the aftermath of such incidents, a review of the circumstances is in order. Was the officer/others in immediate danger, did he have other options, did he have the training to understand those options and know to look for bystanders, assuming he had the ability to? Ask these questions to determine justification, culpability if anything/anyone else is hit, identify training policies to be revamped etc. In some circumstances, an officer may make a mistake due to negligence, which should require personal responsibility and subsequent litigation. In others, a lesser charge or even a release from legal responsibility due to a lack of knowledge and training is in order, followed by the department correcting those holes in the policy. At the heart though, is that the process should be no different than a non LEO citizen in the same circumstance, except that the officer and/or the department should be held to a higher standard of culpability. If an 18 year old in a war zone can be held to account, then so can everyone else. Knowing that he’s a fellow marine, I feel more comfortable with his decision than otherwise, because he hopefully has the appropriate training and experience to make such a decision. Still situational awareness is paramount for LEO, just as much if not more so than the military. In any event, each of us are supposed to be judged upon how we react to what we know, rather than what might be. To put myself in that situation, I know that a violent individual with no apparent respect for law or life is trying to kill me – probably other people who I am supposed to protect as well. I may not know necessarily what is behind him, but he is the immediate and real threat. It’s a tough judgment call, and one that needs to be made with no hesitation. So long as we confirm that he was not negligent, can we say that any of us could not have done the same?

  24. I think it depends. I would say yes if and only if, the policeman is getting shot at or imminently about to be shot at. I think that an unequivocal yes is a dangerous thing to hand the police in light of recent events. Can you imagine the situation: Suspected armed burglar is in your house. Police then use soviet style military tactics and then hose down every window and door to your home while you are in it as “suppressive fire”. Or the Chris Dorner case where LAPD hosed down the wrong vehicle with hundreds of rounds because they wrongly suspected that a gunman was inside.

    I am glad that most people here seem to sense that suppressive fire is both necessary and yet a thing we cannot allow the police carte blanche in employment.

  25. As long as innocent bystanders are not at risk of harm then I believe that it should be a legitimate tactic. Suppressive fire (for what it is worth from a handgun) forces the aggressor to remain in cover and not engage the person defending him/herself, that way the defender can potentially move to cover/better cover, flank the aggressor, allow unarmed civilians to vacate the area etc.

  26. Suppression fire is just a cover for “I was getting shot at, so I ducked and held the gun up, firing blindly.”

    I get it. Still, is it absolutely necessary to lie?

  27. I see a great many comments that show ignorance of what suppression is. Suppressing fire is aimed and accurate fire. It MUST be in order to be effective. The target isn’t the building or the cover and the goal is ALWAYS neutralize the threat. The difference comes in that suppression is not primarily meant to cause injury it is meant to prevent any combat effective action from the target. Suppressing fire is absolutely justifiable when it can be effectively and safely employed. It’s an incredible tool for controlling the actions of a hostile. Damage caused here state side by its employment is still the responsibility of the shooter though, that cannot be understated.

    • I see a new trend emerging here whereby trigger happy poor shooting cops can conveniently, even heroically, redefine their numerous stray rounds as suppression fire. Now, if only they could think up a trick to rename all those hits on bystanders.

  28. Full auto aside (and I’ve never heard of a LEO spray and pray), this crap where anyone, cop or non-cop, is defending themselves and the press/community wants to come in and play Monday-morning quarterback about the number of shots fired is complete and utter nonsense. If he didn’t hit/endanger any bystanders you shoot until the threat is stopped.

  29. To answer the question straight up: Yes, police should be able to use tactics that are prudent to the situation.

    That being said, would average joe ccw’er in the same situation be extended the same courtesy in a court of law? That is the real question. We’re always told we are responsible for every round we touch off. If the shooting went to trial, then could that be used as evidence against us i.e. showing wanton disregard? Just some ideas to think about.

  30. When you are actually being fired upon, the tendency is to do what is necessary to survive. I don’t think you can make a “policy” about suppressive fire as it depends on each situation. There are clearly situations where suppressive fire would be the correct tactic. This could definitely occur with barricaded criminals or terrorists.

  31. I’ve got to go with no, it is not ok. If the officer was able to find cover and wasn’t being advanced on, then why not WAIT. Wait for backup. Wait for a clear shot. Wait for the BG to run out of ammo.

    In a war zone, resources might SEEM unlimited so the bullets will just keep flying, but in an urban setting how much ammo could the BG have? And as for officer safety, stay behind that wall/rock/tree/telephone pole.

    Sadly, I don’t see that having recent military experience is a positive thing for police. They have been conditioned to shoot first if someone looks suspicious. They were trained in an urban setting AND a war zone. I think this is one of the reasons why the police are militarizing and have become overly aggressive in their tactics. I’m starting to wonder if the desensitization wasn’t by design or maybe it’s just an unpleasant byproduct of going to war.

    We talk about and hope for muscle memory to kick in when we are in danger. Their style of fighting has become muscle memory. It kept them alive to come home so the behavior has been reinforced. The problem with that is it’s WAY to aggressive for the civilian population here in the homeland. Protect yourself by all reasonable means, but this is NOT a war zone.

  32. Dad told me a story about his friend who was pinned down in a fox hole by MG42 fire. He would put his head up, and the MG42 would open up on him .This was repeated, so finally the guy just put his M1 above his head, pointed it in the general direction of the German fire, and started pulling the trigger.

    • The cop in this story reminds me of the guy with the M1 versus the MG42 machine gun nest. I am quite sure the M1 fire was really effective. I am glad not too many people were around the cop and the crook when he was shooting over his head.

  33. It seems odd to me that people comment without watching the video linked in the summary post. The reporters retrace the LEO’s drive, and go to the spot from which he fired his pistol the first X times of 17.

    The LEO had complete effective cover, safe from the perp’s shots. Look for yourself. He had to raise the gun over his head because otherwise he would have to shoot through three or feet of dirt. He was shooting blind, holding the gun over his head: The shots were flying towards two houses in a residential neighborhood.

    The LEO was not, under those facts, shooting “suppressive” fire to save his life, but “to win the battle.” That is not, in my view, legal justification for blind fire. And the question isn’t “is it OK because, after the shooting, we find no innocent was injured?” The question is, “at the moment he started firing blind from behind an earthen berm, was that shooting lawful?” I think the answer is, at best, “maybe.” If a non-LEO behaved similarly (same justification, same result) he’d be in jail.

    • Was that the actual location of the shooting, or did they just use that spot to demonstrate the situation? If that was the actual location, the cover didn’t look all that complete to me – his head and upper body would have still been exposed to someone level with him, let alone someone with 1-2 feet of elevation. There also didn’t appear to be a clear avenue of retreat for the officer.

      On the other hand, the attorney’s demonstration – holding the gun a foot above his head, firing blindly – is pretty horrifying regardless of circumstance. It also looked like it occurred right in front of a house, not an isolated alley.

    • Yep. It’s cut and dried negligence. He knew – or should have known – that his actions could result in harm to life, limb, or property.

  34. Ok, high speeds, let’s back this discussion up a little. Let’s start with the definition of suppressive fire:

    “fire that degrades the performance of an enemy force below the level needed to fulfill their mission. Suppression is usually only effective for the duration of the fire”

    Then let’s put that in context:

    Suppressive fire is part of an American military doctrine called “Fire and Maneuver” or “Base of Fire” that dates back to the end of WW1 but really came into its’ prime in WW2, The basic idea behind fire and maneuver is that attacking an enemy head on is bad, and rolling a flank is good. The concept is that a base of fire element lays down suppressive fire to keep the enemy main body pinned down. While doing this the maneuver element moves into position along the enemy’s flank. When the maneuver element is in position, the base of fire element lifts and shifts fires to allow the maneuver element to close with and assault the enemy positions.

    There is no civilian application for any of that. The concept of firing to degrade the opponent’s ability to respond is beyond the scope of law governing self defense. You have a right to defend yourself and stop the threat. You do not have the right to throw semi-aimed rounds all over the neighborhood. Which is what suppressive fire really is. It is semi-aimed. The intent is not to end the threat/destroy the target – the intent is to reduce the effectiveness of the target’s return fire.

    /sarc on/ I hate to break this to Officer McDonut, but gang bangers can’t shoot for cr@p, anyway. The very idea of “suppressing” a gangbanger is ludicrous. He should stand really still – if he moves he might accidentally walk into a poorly aimed round from the perps “gat” /sarc off

    That is all.

  35. Suppressive fire is by definition a MILITARY tactic…the bullets are not aimed at a specific target.
    This means that those bullets are WILLFULLY fired addressed to “whom it may concern”.
    THAT is completely unacceptable conduct for law enforcement. The fact that the officer is a
    FORMER marine is not relevant. His training and the standard of conduct he MUST be held to
    is that of a public servant and that includes NOT firing random UNAIMED rounds EVER.

    I don’t give a rats ass if he HAS been sprinkled with the magic fairy dust of government authority.
    The fact that he felt such actions are acceptable means he is NOT suited to be in law enforcement.

  36. Suppressive fire is fine, but unlike what some morons think in the media and even in the gun community, “suppressive fire” does not mean spray and pray or hose the area down with rounds. Well aimed fires hitting their target are comprised of “suppressive fire”. try arguing with a Ranger in the regiment or any other premiere light infantry unit that “suppressive fire” means spray and pray. You will get kidney punched.

    We are accountable for ALL ROUNDS leaving our muzzles.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here