Shoot to kill

[Gayle29uk]

Ok, so the police now have an official shoot to kill policy, big deal. This is like all the discussion over whether the army had a shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland, pointless. If you are in a position where you have to shoot someone you shoot to kill, end of story. 2 rounds preferrably in the largest target area available (torso) will do it almost every time, if you're a marksman maybe torso and head shots but either way if you are in the position of having to use a gun then you shoot to kill, no messing about.

Why is this so hard to understand for some people

[Dante Hicks]

If shooting to kill is cool then is it OK for the police to kill someone via other methods (e.g. smashing their head in with a baton of some kind)?

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
If shooting to kill is cool then is it OK for the police to kill someone via other methods (e.g. smashing their head in with a baton of some kind)?

I never said it was cool, I said that in a situation where you have to use a gun you never ever try and wound someone. Use of a gun by any agency should be an utter last resort to prevent loss of life (I should add that all US police officers should have their guns removed until they learn that a gun is NOT the answer to every question) and if you reach that last resort it should be final.

[Dante Hicks]

I know nothing about guns, but is it hard to shoot someone in a non-fatal (but debilitating) manner if you're a trained professional?

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I know nothing about guns, but is it hard to shoot someone in a non-fatal (but debilitating) manner if you're a trained professional?

Yes. There's also the fact that in debilitating them you now have them in a position where they are hurt, scared, possibly angry, and most likely still armed. You have in effect increased the likelihood of someone else getting hurt.

I'm not saying kill all the little scrotes (although there are times...) but if there is no other option than to shoot someone then they should be a cooling corpse seconds later.

Short version: If they don't need to die then you don't need your gun, if they do then do it without pissing about.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I know nothing about guns, but is it hard to shoot someone in a non-fatal (but debilitating) manner if you're a trained professional?

I'd say its not that hard to aim for the legs?

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by ParraCida
I'd say its not that hard to aim for the legs?

Femoral artery is in the legs, a slug through that is a painful and pretty quick way to die. You now have a hurt, scared, dying scrote (presumably armed or you wouldn't have needed to shoot him in the forst place) who is probably very pissed off to boot.

This assumes a stationary target of course. Hitting a running target in the legs would (I imagine) be rather difficult.

[Nusselt]

surely shoot to incapacitate is better, shoot to kill implies that is what you always desire as the final outcome.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by ParraCida
I'd say its not that hard to aim for the legs?

It's not at all hard to aim for the legs. Hitting them is another matter.

A pistol (the weapon most police officers carry) is reasonably accurate at shorter ranges in good conditions; but add in all the distractions you don't have on the firing line (sub-optimal light, target moving, target shooting back, etc) and it becomes more difficult.

An officer should only fire his weapon if someone's life is in immediate danger. In that case, you don't want to be messing around.

[Structural Integrity]

In the Netherlands police officers have to aim for the torso. If your target is armed you want to take it out as quick as possible. When aiming for a leg or arm the chance of missing him is bigger.

This shooting incident of a week or so back where this moroccan got killed was the officer shooting at the torso. The moroccan assualted the officer with a knife and if the officer had missed we'd have had another march against meaningless violence (if that's the correct translation for "zinloos geweld").

[Apothos]

Speaking of shooting people:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3157345.stm

[Vaio]

The silly girl should have put the gun down

Vaio

[Mushroom]

am i right in thinking that the police only have a shoot to kill policy against people they think are going to commit a terrorist act, like suicide bombers etc?

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Tony Carruthers, the owner of the cottage near Harperrig Reservoir, about 12 miles south-west of Edinburgh, said the woman, known as Jenny, was in a "stable" condition in hospital.

[Fifth_teletubbie]

Originally posted by ParraCida
I'd say its not that hard to aim for the legs?

The risk is that when aiming for the legs it is quite easy to miss altogether, or only graze your target.
Either of those could mean the policeman in question gets knifed/batted/shot before he gets to try again.

The 'aim-for-the-torso' policy is primarily intended to save police lives.

[Radical Edward]

they should get extra points for a headshot, and comedy points for putting a bullet in someone's backside.

[at0mic.c0w]

in a war hurting is prefered over killing because it takes a least one other guy to get a hurt soldier off the battlefield. of course it's different for policemen on the streets.

[KaneED]

The trouble for police having any kinda of 'shoot' policy is that once a police officer has fired a shot in the line of duty they are automatically suspended while an investigation ensues. This of course discourages officers from shooting in circumstances where they most likely have to.

It's ****ing stupid.

[Zar]

that stun gun thing looks quite good. Hopefully one day it will replace the gun as a protection and disabling device within the police force. It will prevent unnecessary deaths due to confusion.

I also firmly believe that a life of a policeman or officer is NOT worth anything more than a civilian. What you see in the usa is trigger happy nutcase policemen (they have a saying that if you are an education dropout [i.e a moron] you join the military or police force in the usa), will shoot a victim if the "cop" is likely to get even a scratch.

Hopefully british officers won't become like their trigger happy american counterparts, who think the use of the gun is the best thing since the wheel was invented.

Zar

[SYMM]

Originally posted by Mushroom
am i right in thinking that the police only have a shoot to kill policy against people they think are going to commit a terrorist act, like suicide bombers etc?

As i understood it, it's not new policy at all....just reinforcing to officers (from the guys upstairs) what they should and need to do in situations, the reasons given for the re-affirming of the policy was indeed threats of suicide bombers.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Zar
Hopefully british officers won't become like their trigger happy american counterparts, who think the use of the gun is the best thing since the wheel was invented.

I'm curious how you've arrived at the conclusion that American police officers are trigger happy. I hope it isn't on the basis of Hollywood movies and tv shows.

If you look at the numbers of American police officers who are assaulted and murdered each year you might come to a different conclusion.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Ok, so the police now have an official shoot to kill policy, big deal. This is like all the discussion over whether the army had a shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland, pointless. If you are in a position where you have to shoot someone you shoot to kill, end of story. 2 rounds preferrably in the largest target area available (torso) will do it almost every time, if you're a marksman maybe torso and head shots but either way if you are in the position of having to use a gun then you shoot to kill, no messing about.

Why is this so hard to understand for some people

Shoot to kill policy on who? Jaywalkers? Somehow I doubt most people are really in a position to comment on how difficult it is for a trained police officer to shoot not to kill someone. If the person/criminal in question hasn't actually used a gun yet and doesn't show overt signs of wishing to is a shoot to kill policy really necessary. Anyone know exactly what this policy is?

[G_frog]

Originally posted by Tactitus
If you look at the numbers of American police officers who are assaulted and murdered each year you might come to a different conclusion.

that all americans are trigger-happy?

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by G_frog
that all americans are trigger-happy?

Certainly America is a more violent country than many. If you feel the need to oversimplify that concept into a stereotype, then by all means call us "trigger happy." Just don't single out our police officers.

[G_frog]

That was by way of irony, but - oh no, too many stereotypes.

[warrmr]

IMO a police officer shoudl be armed with 2 guns a standard lethal gun by this i mean a gun that takes standard ammo. and a non lethal gun or lesser leathal gun like a 177 co2 powered air pistol. now those ****ers hurt if hit with a rounded lead pellet and they will penitrate wood with the pointed lead pellet.

[Scoot951]

Originally posted by Tactitus
I'm curious how you've arrived at the conclusion that American police officers are trigger happy. I hope it isn't on the basis of Hollywood movies and tv shows.

If you look at the numbers of American police officers who are assaulted and murdered each year you might come to a different conclusion.

Have you seen Reno 911 on Comedy Central? That show cracks me up.








Anyways, I support the use of non-lethal weaponry, but they should have something more damaging as a backup (like a shotgun in the car trunk), and if it's an either-or situation I'd go with lethal.

[Lupin]

i still think they should develope weapons, which disables the attacker.

[Tempestuous]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Femoral artery is in the legs, a slug through that is a painful and pretty quick way to die. You now have a hurt, scared, dying scrote (presumably armed or you wouldn't have needed to shoot him in the forst place) who is probably very pissed off to boot.

This assumes a stationary target of course. Hitting a running target in the legs would (I imagine) be rather difficult.

The femoral artery is ~8mm in diameter, shooting someone in the legs is far less likely to kill them.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Tempestuous
The femoral artery is ~8mm in diameter, shooting someone in the legs is far less likely to kill them.

It's also amazingly more difficult.

[W]

Originally posted by Lupin
i still think they should develope weapons, which disables the attacker.

A bullet disables an attacker pretty effectively.

[Phang]

Originally posted by W
A bullet disables an attacker pretty effectively.

lololololololololol

[CrashTester]

I personally think all police officers should ride horses, wear full metal armour and use pole arms.

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
I never said it was cool, I said that in a situation where you have to use a gun you never ever try and wound someone. Use of a gun by any agency should be an utter last resort to prevent loss of life (I should add that all US police officers should have their guns removed until they learn that a gun is NOT the answer to every question) and if you reach that last resort it should be final.

Offcourse you had to pick out the Americans as the big baddies. If I where you, I would start focusing on the real bad ones; take for instance Russia, China, Korea, Iraq or any other similar state. USA is peanuts.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
I would say that if someone steels a TV and is resisting arrest, rather then shooting them, let them get away.

I think he's a bad citizen, not cooperating, and thus is worth getting rid of.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
You may think that but that is not for a single police officer to decide, we have an entire justice system to determine that.

I think your attitude could do with some thought, you are overly secure in your social position and although I don't know about your life I suspect you haven't had to live through alot of economic hardship, or had cause to be particularly fearful of cops.

Your casual attitude to life and death is a symptom of mild psychosis.

These are men wich we trust to be people of high morale and high standards.

Just like judges, politicians and lawyers.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by BarbieKen
These are men wich we trust to be people of high morale and high standards.

Just like judges, politicians and lawyers.

Awwwww, now I gotta clean diet pepsi off my monitor

[Vaio]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
If shooting to kill is cool then is it OK for the police to kill someone via other methods (e.g. smashing their head in with a baton of some kind)?

There is probably less paperwork to fill in

Vaio

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by ParraCida
I'd say its not that hard to aim for the legs?

I'd say you've never fired a gun in your life.

[Lupin]

Originally posted by W
A bullet disables an attacker pretty effectively.

grmbl..
it should disable him, but it shouldnt kill him. i mean if the attackers is disable, it doesnt represent a threat to anyone.

ps. it should disable the attacker for about 10mins or whatever but not the whole life

[Tempestuous]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
It's also amazingly more difficult.

Which has precisely nothing to do with what gayle posted.

[Leshy]

Hopefully those Discovery Channel sonic guns will be around soon, then you don't have to worry about shooting and killing someone.

[W]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
I'd say you've never fired a gun in your life.

That's such a gay and stereotypical attitude man. You're indistinguishable from the guys that say the same to me (and I guess even to you).

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Awwwww, now I gotta clean diet pepsi off my monitor

You mean, you don't trust them?

Airguns. Hardly intimidating, but it hurts like hell!