• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The behaviour of US police officers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Except that there is good reason for this, as explained. This isn't the movies, where you can shoot limbs or inflict flesh wounds on command, or where a single bullet kills 100% of the time. If you have to shoot, you do it to stop the threat, and so you don't take chances.

Of course the actual issue here isn't the number of bullets, but the ease with which police decide to resort to violent or deadly force.
Click to expand...

No, there’s good reasons for it if your goal is to eliminate threats. But that shouldn’t be the police goal.
 
Dave Rogers said:
There's a cycle path near me a bit like that, that's shared with the pedestrian path in places. It's set back from a major road, and there's a series of side roads into residential areas that the cycle path crosses a few feet back from the side of the main road. As a result, cyclists have to pretty much stop dead at every side road and check traffic from in front, to the side, and behind, because cars turning into or out of the side roads have right of way. All it takes is one car forgetting to signal and you're on the deck, or worse. Staying on the road, which as far as I'm aware is perfectly legal despite the occasional counter-claim by drivers of white vans, is a hell of a lot safer even if you don't factor in the sections that are shared with pedestrians.

Dave
Click to expand...

<derail>

It's pretty common, and one reason why I tend to use the road rather than a cycle path that's too short and pushes me into traffic at a stupid time.

Indeed there's a whole website (the Warrington Cycle Campaign Cycle Facility of the Month) sarcastically pointing out some of the worst implementations

ETA

This one explains a lot of the hazards for example;

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/September2018.htm
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
No, there’s good reasons for it if your goal is to eliminate threats. But that shouldn’t be the police goal.
Click to expand...

Unless such an objective is absolutely necessary for the police in that situation, they should not be using the firearm at all and choosing a less lethal option, rather than trying to sorta use it but not to kill probably. A standard firearm is just not suitable for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
Unless such an objective is absolutely necessary for the police in that situation, they should not be using the firearm at all and choosing a less lethal option, rather than trying to sorta use it but not to kill probably.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but they’re not very good at that. Maybe it’s from training them like soldiers. Aim center mass, fire until the threat is eliminated. Maximize your damage to the target. Hooah.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I think he could have hit her legs and effectively stopped her had the cop not been trained the only option with one's gun is a kill shot.
Click to expand...

For pete's sake, Ginger, this is discussed every time the topic comes up. Why can't you absorb this?

It is unreasonable to even expect expert gunmen to hit limbs on command. You end up putting more people in danger from stray bullets, and risk failing to stop the suspect.

If the suspect forces you to use bullets, shoot to kill. If you don't want to kill, don't use a gun.

Furthermore, shooting in a leg or arm has high odds of severing an important artery anyway. Once more: THIS ISN'T THE MOVIES.
 
Belz... said:
For pete's sake, Ginger, this is discussed every time the topic comes up. Why can't you absorb this?

It is unreasonable to even expect expert gunmen to hit limbs on command. You end up putting more people in danger from stray bullets, and risk failing to stop the suspect.

If the suspect forces you to use bullets, shoot to kill. If you don't want to kill, don't use a gun. Furthermore, shooting in a leg or arm has high odds of severing an important artery anyway. Once more: THIS ISN'T THE MOVIES.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
*Checks notes* Jedi aren't a thing, so cops can't be expected to go around shooting bullets out of the air and guns out of hands.

It's a stupid suggestion, we can move on.
 
gnome said:
Unless such an objective is absolutely necessary for the police in that situation, they should not be using the firearm at all and choosing a less lethal option, rather than trying to sorta use it but not to kill probably. A standard firearm is just not suitable for that purpose.
Click to expand...

Having alternatives at the ready should be the first step.
 
Belz... said:
For pete's sake, Ginger, this is discussed every time the topic comes up. Why can't you absorb this?

It is unreasonable to even expect expert gunmen to hit limbs on command. You end up putting more people in danger from stray bullets, and risk failing to stop the suspect.

If the suspect forces you to use bullets, shoot to kill. If you don't want to kill, don't use a gun.

Furthermore, shooting in a leg or arm has high odds of severing an important artery anyway. Once more: THIS ISN'T THE MOVIES.
Click to expand...
You mean why am I not convinced? :rolleyes:

And screw that about not the movies, everyone who doesn't agree with you is not ignorant.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You mean why am I not convinced? :rolleyes:

And screw that about not the movies, everyone who doesn't agree with you is not ignorant.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of not agreeing with me. It's a matter of ignoring the entire expertise of the field of firearms use.

So yes, why are you not convinced? In gunfights most bullets miss, even at point blank range.
 
Belz... said:
For pete's sake, Ginger, this is discussed every time the topic comes up. Why can't you absorb this?

It is unreasonable to even expect expert gunmen to hit limbs on command. You end up putting more people in danger from stray bullets, and risk failing to stop the suspect.

If the suspect forces you to use bullets, shoot to kill. If you don't want to kill, don't use a gun.

Furthermore, shooting in a leg or arm has high odds of severing an important artery anyway. Once more: THIS ISN'T THE MOVIES.
Click to expand...

I knew this why did hs shoot her in the hand crap would come up....
 
Belz... said:
For pete's sake, Ginger, this is discussed every time the topic comes up. Why can't you absorb this?

It is unreasonable to even expect expert gunmen to hit limbs on command. You end up putting more people in danger from stray bullets, and risk failing to stop the suspect.

If the suspect forces you to use bullets, shoot to kill. If you don't want to kill, don't use a gun.

Furthermore, shooting in a leg or arm has high odds of severing an important artery anyway. Once more: THIS ISN'T THE MOVIES.
Click to expand...

There are countries where the cops are trained to shoot like this.
 
There will be..and should be..a invesitgation in the Columbus shooting, but IMHO the cop is not going to face criminal charges.
And, frankly, you are not find to a jury in the world to convict him given the circumstances.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Apart from the countries where they are trained to do it you mean?
Click to expand...

And which would those be? U.S. training is that cops shouldn't be shooting at all unless lethal force is appropriate. Any gunshot could kill; you don't want police shooting suspects -- or bystanders -- if there's any alternative.
 
A lot of people sure..excuse the expression...jumped the gun on the Columbus shooting.
But I have had a long standing complaint that people on both sides of the polirical spectrum take sides on police shootings without bothering to wart for the facts to come out.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And their lack of training and ability to use nonlethal options.

That cop shot almost point blank and didn't hit the girl who was entangled with the victim. I think he could have hit her legs and effectively stopped her had the cop not been trained the only option with one's gun is a kill shot.

The kill shot training needs to be reevaluated.
Click to expand...

I'm going to come at this from the other direction.

Why bother? Someone escalates to deadly force, why should we go even an inch out of our way to preserve their life? Why should we accept any risk at all, to protect their interests?

This guy is trying to kill someone, and your concern is for his safety. What's up with that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom