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.
If someone is armed with a knife or weapon other than a firearm, the police in Europe will generally try to use non-lethals which range from shields and batons, sprays and taser all the way through to plastic and rubber bullets.
In terms of someone with a gun, it depends on the circumstances but they generally will issue a verbal command identifing themselves as armed police and give the persn a chance to put the weapon down.
The same applies to siege situations which are often defused through negotiation and often end peacefully.
As for car tyres the UK Police has special rounds to take out tyres.
The police in the UK and Europe generally very rarely shoot anyone, however the police do shoot at the main body mass in most countries.
Quote:
West Yorkshire Police said: “Tyre deflation rounds are only deployed by specially trained officers utilising specific firearms and ammunition when authorised to do so for pre-planned events.
“Each occasions is subject to a specific assessment utilising the National Decision Making Model (NDM) and authorised by both a strategic firearms commander and also a tactical firearms commander both of whom are specially trained senior officers.”
Of the 33 forces across the UK that supplied information, 22 said they had no incidents of tyres being deflated using firearms over the past seven years.
According to national reports, shotguns are used at close range when using tyre deflation rounds.
Shooting a tire is extremely difficult. First, the vehicle is moving--fast. Second, it's normally moving away, which means the bulk of the tire is shielded by the body of the vehicle, and the exposed section is very small (and moving). Third, tires are actually quite tough, particularly if the officer must aim for the steel-belted tread that's all exposed by a fleeing vehicle. It would be hard to puncture by the smallish-caliber handguns (often 9mm Curtz (short) or .380) issued to most European officers.
The description of the procedures for training and authorization for using these special rounds indicates to me that they are actually high-powered weapons with significantly more potential for collateral injuries than the ordinary police sidearm.
I am calling shenanigans on that claim, as not only have I never ever heard/read/been instructed that warning shots are permitted, but I have never met anyone who has ever trained with firearms who has ever heard/read/been instructed otherwise.
When someone can show me the department reg/instruction that actually describes the usage of waarning shots as part of allowable procedure, I'll stipulate to the existence of such training/permission, but will also stipulate to that department being out of their goddamm minds as well.
I can't produce a quotation, because the mid-1980 guard instructions for Danish military installations has been mercifully dropped on history's dirtpile, but we were instructed to use warning shots, if the situation merited it.
Admittedly, this was a "lethal force permitted to safekeep an installation" scenario, and we had to plan for clueless civilians somehow meandering to where they shouldn't be. It was felt that a warning shot would establish the seriousness of the situation and the balance of power right quick, if someone challenged the guard's authority.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.â€"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Shooting a tire is extremely difficult. First, the vehicle is moving--fast. Second, it's normally moving away, which means the bulk of the tire is shielded by the body of the vehicle, and the exposed section is very small (and moving). Third, tires are actually quite tough, particularly if the officer must aim for the steel-belted tread that's all exposed by a fleeing vehicle. It would be hard to puncture by the smallish-caliber handguns (often 9mm Curtz (short) or .380) issued to most European officers.
The description of the procedures for training and authorization for using these special rounds indicates to me that they are actually high-powered weapons with significantly more potential for collateral injuries than the ordinary police sidearm.
It's basically a shotgun type round known as a Clucas MoE Hatton Round and specialist officers are trained to use the technique.
Pretty much this. Also worth remembering that if you're in a situation where lethal force is merited, you're likely fearing for your life. And you're not Wyatt Earp. (Sorry, Wyatt, if you're reading this.) The fight-or-flight reflex is going to be in full force, with a ton of adrenaline kicking in. Your caveman brain is preparing you to hit a sabretooth tiger with a rock.
That means sweaty hands, shaking, elevated heart rate, elevated breathing rate - all of which means you're unlikely to be able to hit a damn thing. This is not a pleasant day at the range. So you go for center mass, because that increases your chance of getting a round somewhere on target where it may have a stopping effect. For a human, center mass has a lot of bits that will kill you if damaged by penetrating trauma.
Agreed.
Firearm is a lethal force.
The suspect has to be an imminent threat and you fear for you life when you shoot the suspect.
But if you shoot the suspect in the leg to wound him, well, then the suspect is not an imminent threat...is he?
Movies and TV have really distorted reality for people. One bullet=dead is so often depicted on TV its amazing. Being shot once usually means the person will survive if treated soon. But the odds go down quickly if shot twice. But even if shot, your target can return fire. That why the goal is shoot to stop.
Some may say if they were ever threatened, they would not shoot to kill, but just to stop the attacker. They claim it's more humane, more in line with their conscience (not to take a life) and more likely to bring justice for any victims.
Others say, "Hell no! If that Bat Rastard chose to threaten, the next case he'll be pleading will be with his Maker!"
If you were threatened to the point where you needed to draw a firearm, would you shoot to stop, shoot to kill, or would it depend on the situation?
You shoot to kill. Obviously you've never been exposed to any military or criminal justice training.
This is why I disagree with the easy availability of assault style weapons. Assault style weapons are designed to kill. They belong in the hands of military and police only.
This is why I disagree with the easy availability of assault style weapons. Assault style weapons are designed to kill. They belong in the hands of military and police only.
So you don't think that people being attacked should be able to defend themselves, they should just die.
This is why I disagree with the easy availability of assault style weapons. Assault style weapons are designed to kill. They belong in the hands of military and police only.
What if the citizen has their life threatened by the police or military?
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.
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.
