• 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.
Bob001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And aiming for an arm or leg is HARD in a crisis/combat situation. Is not even that easy to do on a target range. There is a reason why the military and the police train you to aim for the Mass..the body.
 
We had this last year in this same thread as I remember.

In Finland, Germany, Denmark, Czech Republic and several other EU countries it is police policy to shoot for the legs if not facing a subject with a gun such as if the subject has a knife, and even if the subject possesses a gun, if officers have good cover, they will aim for the legs, one officer will shoot an aimed round. It's a policy works well.
Officers are trained to a higher standard.
 
dudalb said:
And aiming for an arm or leg is HARD in a crisis/combat situation. Is not even that easy to do on a target range. There is a reason why the military and the police train you to aim for the Mass..the body.
Click to expand...

And it’s not even a nonlethal option. A leg shot can easily kill. Hit the femoral artery, and you bleed out fast.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
We had this last year in this same thread as I remember.

In Finland, Germany, Denmark, Czech Republic and several other EU countries it is police policy to shoot for the legs if not facing a subject with a gun such as if the subject has a knife, and even if the subject possesses a gun, if officers have good cover, they will aim for the legs, one officer will shoot an aimed round. It's a policy works well.
Officers are trained to a higher standard.
Click to expand...
Does this policy apply to a lone officer under attack? I bet not.
 
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...

dudalb said:
Name Them.\
Frankly, surprisedf that someone who is retired military buys into this Shoot To Wound crap.
Click to expand...



Yeah, this. There are lots of places that don't train the US-style "Empty your gun into them" mindset of shooting, but I'm not aware of any place that trains to shoot "warning shots" or "shoot the legs".
 
I just posted a link to a place that trains warning shots and shoot the legs.

There are a number of European countries that do it.
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...
Gosh golly, the entire field of experts, not a single dissenting voice among them. :rolleyes:

FUBAR, it's time to revisit the 'shoot to kill or don't shoot' mantra. It's easy to just tell all the cops in the country the same thing, that way one need not address the finer points.
 
dudalb said:
I knew this why did hs shoot her in the hand crap would come up....
Click to expand...
For the record, no one, least of all me said shoot her in the hand. So stop putting your stereotype movie version words of why I'm wrong in my mouth.

That girl had a very large body mass, the girl entangled with her wasn't hit, the cop shot almost point blank. He could have hit lower or just shot in the ground to get everyone's attention.
 
dudalb said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which is not my point at all.
 
Bob001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's the idea. And then there is reality.
 
dudalb said:
And aiming for an arm or leg is HARD in a crisis/combat situation. Is not even that easy to do on a target range. There is a reason why the military and the police train you to aim for the Mass..the body.
Click to expand...

The military trains you to shoot center mass, because the goal is to kill your enemy. I question whether or not that the police should share training where that is the goal.

But even from a practicality standpoint, which everyone should freely admit that aiming center mass is the most likely way to hit and kill your target and aiming for limbs is more likely to result in a miss, I believe we should be asking if taking several shots is good training. I believe assessing the situation in between shots would result in fewer lethal incidents in general, particularly in unjustified shootings.

I realize that showing restraint can add additional risks on police in some situations, but I think placing themselves at risk to protect innocent people's lives is part of their job.
 
Ziggurat said:
And it’s not even a nonlethal option. A leg shot can easily kill. Hit the femoral artery, and you bleed out fast.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, it could have killed her vs it was certain to kill her.

And BTW, you don't bleed out in seconds from a femoral artery. You have a couple minutes to stop the bleeding.
 
dirtywick said:
The military trains you to shoot center mass, because the goal is to kill your enemy. I question whether or not that the police should share training where that is the goal.

But even from a practicality standpoint, which everyone should freely admit that aiming center mass is the most likely way to hit and kill your target and aiming for limbs is more likely to result in a miss, I believe we should be asking if taking several shots is good training. I believe assessing the situation in between shots would result in fewer lethal incidents in general, particularly in unjustified shootings.

I realize that showing restraint can add additional risks on police in some situations, but I think placing themselves at risk to protect innocent people's lives is part of their job.
Click to expand...
There are many cops who would miss even at close range.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
A taser would have worked, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds.... where were the options and why wasn't the cop trained to utilize other options?

I am not blaming the cop, BTW. It looked like he did exactly as he was trained.
Click to expand...

You say these alternatives would have worked, but how do you know? How much experience do you have with such issued? Less dangerous weapons have the serious drawback that they are also less effective at stopping attackers. Given how little time was available here to stop the attacker, I'm not sure tasers, rubber bullets, or bean bag rounds would have been warranted, even if they were available.

In addition, bean bag rounds are also shotgun ammunition, they are not available for handguns. Police don't carry shotguns on their person very often. I think a lot of rubber bullets are the same.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Oh wow, it could have killed her vs it was certain to kill her.
Click to expand...

Torso shots are not certain to kill.

And whether or not it would kill her is, quite frankly, a distant secondary concern. The primary concern was to stop her attack. And yes, a torso shot has a higher probability to stop her attack than a leg shot.
 
Cop did look trigger happy to be honest.

Corrections officers show more restraint in similar situations than this cop did.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
I just posted a link to a place that trains warning shots and shoot the legs.

There are a number of European countries that do it.
Click to expand...

I may be mis-remembering but didn't the UK police shoot to wound the killers of Lee Rigby? I know they were both shot and both survived but I seem to remember reports at the time saying the police deliberately shot their legs to take them down...?

I guess that's the difference you have when the only police with guns are highly trained marksmen...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom