U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-27-2016, 10:49 AM
 
32,293 posts, read 26,146,754 times
Reputation: 18931

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but after you get done with all the rhetoric, I simply point to the fact that you are not paying attention. I will spare you all the condemnation I could likewise throw your way in kind.

We are all generally aware of current common practice. Forgive me for suggesting what changes may be appropriate after department after department has announced the need for sweeping changes and better training. With all due respect to the status quo, again the circumstances should be properly evaluated and of course each warrants unique tactics to accomplish the goal of apprehending and/or stopping criminals.

Also again, I was referring to the case where there is all too often a stand-off taking a good long time with many officers trained on the suspect. I don't think you need to be an expert marksman to shoot someone in the leg by firing a few shots in that lower area.

Or say when officers shoot someone trying to get away after a burglary, like that kid that stole a purse and $10 from the house, shot dead...

I do understand the rationale and legal justification for deadly force as that case, for example, lead to the Tennessee V Garner ruling. I also well understand the rational for officers to shoot to kill when they truly feel threatened.

Go on half-cocked as you will to the contrary...
try to educate someone, and this is the result, insults. you refuse to learn, thus you will remain in ignorance. perhaps one day you will learn something about firearms but probably not, one can always hope though.

as i and other have said, shooting at the extremities does require better marksmanship skills than most people have. and as i said, it only happens in the movies. in real life there are legal issues to deal with as pointed out by others.

as i have repeatedly suggested, get an education on this subject before posting again, so as to avoid embarrassing yourself again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2016, 10:53 AM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 1,998,668 times
Reputation: 1713
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Just pointing out that you are not the only one who looks at the numbers, and I have already addressed what I think is your heartburn, hard to tell...

Fact is, there is all the "good, bad and ugly" when it comes to gun violence in America and the downward trend is part of the good that demonstrates that progress I think we are all striving for, though cause/effect is an illusive matter on which to draw conclusion.

In any case, we are all inclined to paint all "others" with a broad brush as you seem inclined, and I'm not going to defend what either side considers or not since I am no representative either way. Again, I just offered up that article that starts this thread as where I pretty much land on the subject all considered? Alright with you?
It's your dime. You have a lot more invested in this thread than me. Lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 11:00 AM
 
18,553 posts, read 9,541,594 times
Reputation: 5185
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Yes, yet again the ignorance and/or want to suggest you know so much better than anyone else.

"Police responded with the familiar refrain: We don't shoot to maim. If there is a threat that requires lethal force, we shoot to kill.

But where did that policy come from? In this age of sophisticated weaponry and training techniques, can officers be trained to shoot suspects in a less deadly way?"

Shooting to kill: Why police are trained to fire fatal shots | cleveland.com

I haven't got time for this, but you could at least have the humility to recognize not all is as you necessarily believe!
People can say whatever they want to say to a news reporter, and since I have yet to see one honest journalist, I rest my case. If they say that in court under oath, they could be convicted for murder.

Nobody should be shooting to maim. Legally, shooting to maim is same as shooting to kill because you decide to use deadly force, which would have deadly consequences including death. Shooting to maim has serious legal and tactical consequences. It's stupid, to put it lightly. Since you don't seem to understand or even be willing to try to understand, it may be better for you to refrain from further commenting as it makes you look stupid.

In reality, police are taught to shoot to stop - to stop the threat by aiming for the largest effective target available: center mass. That's how every police, military, and defense class is taught.

Last edited by lifeexplorer; 06-27-2016 at 11:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 11:07 AM
 
Location: San Diego
34,951 posts, read 31,969,818 times
Reputation: 19423
Did I really just read "shoot to wound"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
1,899 posts, read 1,196,312 times
Reputation: 1535
Police don't "shoot to wound" because this isn't the movies, and police aren't cowboys that can shoot guns out of the hands of a violent criminal.

Go watch some dash cam shooting videos to see what they're really like. I look forward to your apology on how ridiculous the "shoot to wound" claim was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 12:01 PM
 
9,426 posts, read 4,536,850 times
Reputation: 5362
The officer wants to live to go home. They are taught to shoot body mass. That is the best chance of hitting a moving target, especially in a life or death situation. If the criminal does not want to die, they should surrender. The odds of hitting a moving arm or leg are not very good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 12:17 PM
 
18,553 posts, read 9,541,594 times
Reputation: 5185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
The officer wants to live to go home. They are taught to shoot body mass. That is the best chance of hitting a moving target, especially in a life or death situation. If the criminal does not want to die, they should surrender. The odds of hitting a moving arm or leg are not very good.
The odds are pretty good for civilians though now they have limited capacity magazines with less rounds. I bet the civilian shooters have much better shooting skill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 12:23 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,885 posts, read 12,997,657 times
Reputation: 5211
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Yes, yet again the ignorance and/or want to suggest you know so much better than anyone else.

"Police responded with the familiar refrain: We don't shoot to maim. If there is a threat that requires lethal force, we shoot to kill.

But where did that policy come from? In this age of sophisticated weaponry and training techniques, can officers be trained to shoot suspects in a less deadly way?"

Shooting to kill: Why police are trained to fire fatal shots | cleveland.com

I haven't got time for this, but you could at least have the humility to recognize not all is as you necessarily believe!



nobody ever shoots to kill, you just shoot to stop the threat. it is just easiest to shoot for center mass and hit the largest portion of the target available.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 12:35 PM
 
9,426 posts, read 4,536,850 times
Reputation: 5362
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
The odds are pretty good for civilians though now they have limited capacity magazines with less rounds. I bet the civilian shooters have much better shooting skill.
At the range, the cops are not the best. I hope I never have to shoot anyone, but if I do, I will aim for the center body.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 12:45 PM
 
Location: North America
19,634 posts, read 12,394,943 times
Reputation: 8282
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
I've followed this issue for a while now, also by way of more than a few gun threads, and though I have not been altogether against gun control, I have come to accept there isn't much that can be done to stop gun violence in America or even to lessen the body count by any acceptable level. I am no gun expert, and I have been chastised for having an opinion though I am not an expert, even for relying on experts instead. However, as compared to many gun enthusiasts in these threads, for example, I just tend to pay closer attention to other experts that tend to make more sense without all the gun obsession detail down to the patina. Accordingly, rather than go round and round those gun circles, I'm glad to have this to offer as my position. IOWs, I tend to agree almost entirely with what is written here. Not that the "answers" put forth here are altogether satisfying, but about the best we can do I think...

"What can be done to address this much larger toll of gun violence, which leaves nearly 100,000 Americans killed or wounded each year?"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ks-what-doesnt
I'd like to see statistics on the percentage of those killed or wounded that was the result of an illegally obtained weapon. No amount of gun control as proposed would stop that.

What I WOULD like to see is the background check to include the FBI's terror watch list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:32 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top