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.
For all the John Woo's fans who think shooting a suspect in the legs.
Firearm = lethal force to cause serious injury or death. No argument here, right?
Imminent threat = to cause serious injury or death at that moment and time, right?
In order to use lethal force you have to believe the subject is about to cause imminent threat to you or others and you fear for your life. But if you shoot someome in the leg or arm, then you aren't in imminent threat or fear for your life, are you? Unless you believe shooting someone in the leg or arm will stop that person from shooting at you or put a knife in your eye socket.
So why are you using a firearm(lethal force) if you are not at in imminent threat and fear for your life?
The guy is running towards the door of his ex's house, waving a knife and yelling "I am going to kill the *****!" You are off to the side, armed, feel confident in your marksmanship and have time for several shots. Yes, it's a bit contrived, but stranger things happen.
No link, but I trained with Danish law enforcement (long boring story) and yes, this was considered preferable, time and circumstances permitting. The overall directive was minimum use of force. Of course, a police marksman who has time to assess the situation and confidence in marksmanship will be in a much different position than the officer who's suddenly facing a crazed guy with an axe. No matter where you aim, use of firearms is considered lethal force and has to be justified as such.
It's not uncommon for a guy with a knife to run at an officer who shoots and kills the attacker only to be hurt or killed by the knife due to momentum.
I remember there was a guy on Angel Dust (back in the 80s) who had gone crazy with a baseball bat. He hurt several officers. They hit him with bags and those did nothing. They were forced to take him out, even at that, it took a dozen rounds before he was stopped.
The guy is running towards the door of his ex's house, waving a knife and yelling "I am going to kill the *****!" You are off to the side, armed, feel confident in your marksmanship and have time for several shots. Yes, it's a bit contrived, but stranger things happen.
What's his defense if he shoots for a leg and misses? And what percentage of police outside the weapons specialists will be that confident in the middle of such a situation?
How, btw, did you actually train to shoot for the extremity of a man in motion?
What's his defense if he shoots for a leg and misses? And what percentage of police outside the weapons specialists will be that confident in the middle of such a situation?
Those are matters for the inquest that follows every single use of firearms on a member of the public.
Quote:
How, btw, did you actually train to shoot for the extremity of a man in motion?
Up to the confidence level of the marksman in question.
There was in fact an extreme situation in May 1993, when a mob had decided that an EU vote had gone wrong and started smashing up stuff in Copenhagen. Police were dispatched to disperse them, but the mob managed to isolate small groups of police officers and they were hurling cobblestones - not the nice garden-decoration type, the 17th-century paving type - at them. Tear gas ran out, reinforcements were late, and the commander on the scene felt that his men were in imminent danger (they were) and ordered his men to fire to disperse the mob. (First and only time Danish police has fired on a crowd in peace time.) The order shouted on the scene was "Shoot for the legs". 113 rounds were fired, 11 members if the mob were treated for wounds - none serious. And the Copenhagen Police upped their crowd control game to make sure to never be caught unawares again, which so far they haven't. They were justified in the situation, but it should never have been allowed to get out of control. (Ironically, the mob had been setting off homemade fireworks that was considerably louder than the sound from the police officers' service pistols and many had no idea what was happening.)
As I said, fringe example. In the garden variety "Oh, bugger, the idiot is actually running at me" situation, you fire at center mass.
Shoot to kill would be empty a whole mag into a person until he stops posing an imminent threat, reload another mag, and empty that mag into that same person.
The threat is only over when the enemy is dead.
Leave no witnesses.
Shooting to kill means you shoot until the person is dead.
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?
I would shoot to do whatever to be safe. When you only have shot at a range, you probably don’t know what to expect and hope to aim and not miss.
Cops always say to aim at heart or body and not the knees. On top of that, attackers often move forward after being shot, for a few steps or are able to fire in the second before getting hit. So better be real.
Of course if attacker is stopped without being killed, that’s great...depending on what the perpetrator was planning to do. In some cases, I’m not sorry the system has to pay for years for their food, clothes, health care and housing.
The other day a burglar cut himself upon entering and bleed to death. I was soufor the home owners who had to clean up the mess but not sorry for the criminal to be dead. Yesterday I heard on the news that two young carcthiefs died in a car fire, after the stolen car hit something. I was sorry for the loss of the car for the real owner.
You fail to consider accuracy. Maybe you could shoot to just crease the ear lobe to get their attention or maybe just shoot the weapon out of their hand! It is not going to happen. You do not even pull a weapon unless the threat is dire and life threatening. You pull the weapon only when you intend to shoot and then you aim at the easiest target because you do not want to miss. The easiest target is usually the center of the chest.
Link to European cops being trained to shoot the leg?
Already done, and even provided an example where the cops in Finland stopped a terrorist with a shot in the leg.
Some things come to me as common sense, while others prefer "center mass, ALWAYS" approach. No judgment required.
1. Police using lethal force to stop a gunman
2. Police using firearm to stop a guy with a knife
3. Civilian using firearm for self defense
4. Anti-Terror units stopping a terrorist with a bomb
So, #2, a police officer can (if possible) stop a guy with a knife by shooting him in the leg. If they don't have the skills, then maybe they should not be in the force. In the other scenarios lethal force is probably required.
Quote:
Why do American cops kill so many compared to European cops?
Historic rates of fatal police shootings in Europe suggest that American police in 2014 were 18 times more lethal than Danish police and 100 times more lethal than Finnish police, plus they killed significantly more frequently than police in France, Sweden and other European countries.
Knife violence is a big problem in England, yet British police have fatally shot only one person wielding a knife since 2008 – a hostage-taker. By comparison, my calculations based on data compiled by fatalencounters.org and the Washington Post show that US police have fatally shot more than 575 people allegedly wielding blades and other such weapons just in the years since 2013.
In Europe, killing is considered unnecessary if alternatives exist. For example, national guidelines in Spain would have prescribed that Wilson incrementally pursue verbal warnings, warning shots, and shots at nonvital parts of the body before resorting to deadly force.
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?
I think I know where you stand, "they would not shoot to kill, but just to stop the attacker." " "Hell no! If that Bat Rastard chose to threaten, the next case he'll be pleading will be with his Maker!",( It is noted you did NOT state YOUR position, so how can we have an honest adult discussion if you DON'T?)
Quite a BIG difference in your "tone"!
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.
