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.
We just had cops spray 200 rounds at robbers and took out two bystanders in the process. There are countries where cops shoot at the legs. Of course it is possible that the criminals are not armed to teeth like they are in US.
Show me a country where it is policy to shoot at the legs and I’ll show you a country where the inmates run the asylum.
To the left reform = amnesty. At least they do in regard to illegals.
I have no issue with back ground checks, waiting periods or even Mag limits. I do have a very real issue with punishing the masses for the misdeeds of the few.
I too was open to these things, at one time. The constant attack on the 2A with ridiculous propositions, and the overall attitude towards firearms owners has pushed me to the point of no more compromises.
We can put them next to the heroin, condom and cheap cologne vending machines
I don`t think that`s what the Founders had in mind. They just wanted us to be able to shoot each other. There are no amendments covering heroin, condoms or cheap cologne.
We just had cops spray 200 rounds at robbers and took out two bystanders in the process. There are countries where cops shoot at the legs. Of course it is possible that the criminals are not armed to teeth like they are in US.
Name the country, because no law enforcement I have ever heard of trains their officers to actually fire their weapon at something other than center of mass.
I could go through all the reasons, both tactical and logical that this is the case, but I'll just let you provide the example of the countries where cops shoot to cripple or miss.
We just had cops spray 200 rounds at robbers and took out two bystanders in the process. There are countries where cops shoot at the legs. Of course it is possible that the criminals are not armed to teeth like they are in US.
Hard to respond to nonsense, but we'll see if the story teller can drop some proof of that claim, and if he can, I'd love to actually see the training documentation where law enforcement are trained to:
Take much riskier shots
Take shots that are much greater danger to bystanders
Take shots that can still easily kill (femoral artery folks, it's a thing), but are meant to cripple.
Take shots that have less stopping power than center of mass, thus require more risky, easy to miss shots.
Again, I'd love to hear of this law enforcement agency and see their training documentation, because holy cow will I make a living out of clowning that foolishness.
Most European countries. Of course typically they don't shoot at all. A US cop is 100 more lethal than a Finnish cop, and 18 times more lethal than Danish cop. Why? US cops are trained to expect the opponent to carry a gun, which is often the case, and hardly ever the case in Europe. In UK, knives are a bigger issue, but even there cops very rarely use deadly force against someone who is armed only with a knife. In US, however, the cops are likely to shoot you down if you have a knife. In UK, cops have shot one person with a knife in past 11 years, vs nearly 600 in US.
The other reason is that US laws permit the use of lethal force under “reasonable belief”, while in Europe it is permitted only when "absolutely necessary".
Example: Spain
Quote:
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. Six shots would likely be deemed disproportionate to the threat that Brown, unarmed and wounded, allegedly posed.
In the US, only eight states require verbal warnings (when possible), while warning and leg shots are typically prohibited. In stark contrast, Finland and Norway require that police obtain permission from a superior officer, whenever possible, before shooting anyone. Why do American cops kill so many compared to European cops?
And then there is training.
Quote:
The Netherlands, Norway and Finland, for example, require police to attend a national academy – a college for cops – for three years. In Norway, over 5,000 applicants recently competed for the 700 annual spots.
Three years affords police ample time to learn to better understand, communicate with and calm distraught individuals. By contrast, in 2006, US police academies provided an average of 19 weeks of classroom instruction.
Name the country, because no law enforcement I have ever heard of trains their officers to actually fire their weapon at something other than center of mass.
I could go through all the reasons, both tactical and logical that this is the case, but I'll just let you provide the example of the countries where cops shoot to cripple or miss.
Then I guess you don't hear much, and do even less research on your own.
I already provided examples where cops are required to issue verbal warnings, warning shots, and shots at nonvital parts of the body before resorting to deadly force.
But like I said, US cops realistically expect the opponents to carry a gun and are willing to use it, so they act accordingly. What might work in Europe might not work in US (not that its has been tried).
Then I guess you don't hear much, and do even less research on your own.
I already provided examples where cops are required to issue verbal warnings, warning shots, and shots at nonvital parts of the body before resorting to deadly force.
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.