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 they can afford to shoot at a leg, they didn't really have to shoot.
So you say. There was a terror attack in Finland (their first ever), and the police stopped the attacker with a shot in the leg, and he survived. As a result they were able to interrogate him, and find out why he did it, as opposed to endless speculation.
This is just a play on words. Shooting to stop, is shooting to kill and vice versa. Like a poster said earlier, square center mass is where an officer is taught to shoot--which is arguably a kill/stop shot.
Its sad the increasing number of cops dont know when to use this. Seems like lately lots of stories of cop shootings, where there was no threat or no weapon was found on or near the person killed.
There are multiple threads worth of reasons why. The movement of Police departments from public servants to a more militaristic occupying force, improper training, us v. them perceptions, recruiting practices, and on and on. I'm a bit older, and know a number of officers, and most of those old guys could count the number of times they've drawn their sidearm on two hands or less. I watch that Live P.D., and the default stance, regardless of potential situation is escalated to pointing your gun downrange and hoping for de-escalation instead of escalating threat potential. Top tip, stressed out, confused people don't react well to having a weapon pointed at them. Heck, calm, rational people don't react well.
They were warning shots, as in some European countries that is a requirement. In US there is no such requirement, but it is an option when applicable.
How many years have you served in European LE? Nothing else counts.
The general rule in Europe is "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary".
In Finland the police have fired their weapons 120 in the past 10 years. 40 were warnings, and 2 resulted in death and 20 were 'leg shots'.
Not sure about a warning shot however in the UK a clear oral warning must be given of the officers intention to use firearms, unless in a particular situation where it would be pointless or place life at risk.
The oral warning is usually along the lines of "stop armed police" or " armed police, drop the weapon".
In terms of counter terrorism firearms teams, such a warning is unlikely and as already pointed out the police in such situations will shoot for a terrorists head in order to stop the central nervous system in relation to expolosive devices or guns.
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.
From what I can see--yeah, Goggling--warning shots are apparently not explicitly prohibited. That is to say, records indicate warning shots have been fired... but then again, maybe they were really just misses.
I doubt that anyone is actually trained that way, however. And there is still a significant difference between a warning shot an an attempted "incapacitating" shot at an extremity--I saw nothing whatsoever that indicated deliberate "incapacitating" shots were permissible.
I predict that if asked, SOME first-time gun buyers would say, "I bought a gun for protection. But if I were ever to be attacked, I would just shoot them in the arm or the leg. I could NEVER shoot to kill. I don't know if I could ever live with myself after that."
Are THESE the citizens we're advocating to be armed?? They're out there, finding themselves encouraged to buy guns in record numbers. What could go wrong?
As long as they follow the 4 safety rules, I see no issue. I always encourage new shooters to go through at least a basics class taught by a professional.
So you say. There was a terror attack in Finland (their first ever), and the police stopped the attacker with a shot in the leg, and he survived. As a result they were able to interrogate him, and find out why he did it, as opposed to endless speculation.
From what I can see--yeah, Goggling--warning shots are apparently not explicitly prohibited. That is to say, records indicate warning shots have been fired... but then again, maybe they were really just misses.
I doubt that anyone is actually trained that way, however. And there is still a significant difference between a warning shot an an attempted "incapacitating" shot at an extremity--I saw nothing whatsoever that indicated deliberate "incapacitating" shots were permissible.
I can see LE in rural areas take the warning shot option more than those in cities, and it is for the obvious reasons.
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.
