"Shoot to Wound"

[Casurf1978 0]

IMO this law is BS. Police already have less than lethal weapons at their disposal.

Also we dont train killer here. Each country is different. I seriously doubt German police encounter the same problems an LAPD office working in South Central LA does on a daily basis.

[Richards 0]

***Scoopy, you are wrong. If adrenaline is taking over control over your well trained actions, you simply are in wrong job and should definately only keep a broom in your hands. (Perhaps to ride home on it)

German police as well as special forces are trained to "stop" with a shoot at first, in case of deadly danger for a victim, to place the lethal shoot immediately. Adrenaline never should have any influence on those actions. Though, I have to admit that for a simple police officer only dealing with speed racers or drunken teenies, adrenaline surely IS a point. But, they have to train permanently to keep cold blood in difficult situations. ***

You can't help but let adrenaline take over when faced with a life and death situation. If you think about it logically many police officers will go their entire career without having ever fired a shot at someone. When it does happen it is frequently when a cop least expects it and has less than a second to respond and survive. Therefore if it does happen to a cop one afternoon after ten years of routine it will seem like a sudden blur of terror. Case studies have shown that in shootings regardless of training most cops end up going into instinct and reacting without thought or even looking through their sights (which is why so many departments now teach point shooting while looking at the target and not the sights). It is unconscionable to demand that someone in that job (who has a family he/she wants to go home to) waste precious milliseconds when someone three feet away is pointing a gun at them (most police shootings happen at a range of about three feet). I advocate minimum force when possible but when facing a gun 3 feet away it is not posible. The gunmen has made his choice and the cop shouldn't place themselves at undue risk to protect the perpetrater from the consequences of a situation he has choosen to make happen.

Do not handcuff the people who go on the line to make our lives safer.

Richards.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[diverborg 0]

What really bothers me about this whole thread is that a cop is not going to even fire his gun period unless the situation is life threatening to begin with. No cop is gonna shoot some guy in the leg for stealing a purse. If a cop fires his gun his life is in danger, and to threaten that cop with manslaughter if the criminal could have been wounded rather than killed is just fu*%ing ridiculous. I find it apalling that anyone would want to put their law enforcement in this position.
Oh yeah, and if a cop caps some unarmed guy for stealing a purse he's already gonna get manslaughter charges at a minimum, so this law is stupid.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> . . .and are trained executioners.

Uh, they are. The targets they use during training aren't silhouettes of koala bears, they are of people. They are trained to kill. That's what the poll is about, no?

so anyone that uses sillouettes over circle targets is training for assassination duty?

[craddock 0]

Quote

Christelsabine: German police as well as special forces are trained to "stop" with a shoot at first ..snip

To kill a simple street gangsta by shooting in his head after he stole an old ladies' wallet is a little harsh, or not?..snip

But that's just our forces. We do not train killers.

WOW. What are you saying here? Another one of your typical shots at the US? You have a terrible misconseption of what it is like over here. I am not aware of areas that cops are routinly shooting someone to stop them. When and if they are I would assume it is only the "bad cop" that is shooting a street robber just to stop them; unlike your forces in Germany.

Please elaborate? You are saying that it is SOP to shoot to stop and apprehend someone stealing a wallet from little old lady?

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[billvon 2,881]

>so anyone that uses sillouettes over circle targets is training for
>assassination duty?

Assassins kill political figures for political reasons. Executioners kill people, specifically criminals who are to be killed for state-sanctioned reasons.

So if a cop takes out his gun and decides to fire at a fleeing suspect, then yes. His training will make him a better executioner, because at that moment, that's his job; to execute that criminal under the rules he operates by, and that the state has condoned. He doesn't fire and then realize that he accidentally killed him - he intentionally puts him to death.

If you don't like that definition, then by all means, train them to shoot to wound.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

News:

New York State Sen. David Paterson is pushing a bill that would require cops to shoot to wound, rather than using deadly force.

The bill also would create a new provision for second-degree manslaughter that would be reserved specifically for an officer who "uses more than the minimal amount necessary" to stop a crime suspect.

In a memo urging its passage, Paterson wrote: "There is no justification for terminating another's life when a less extreme measure may accomplish the same objective."

Paterson (D-Harlem) wrote that a police officer, under his legislation, "would have to try to shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."

Source: New York Daily News

If that guy especifically says you have to shoot first to the legs, i do not agree with that because it all depends of the circumstances. But i think that what he means is that if one shot to center mass is enough then, don´t shoot 5 times.
My interpretation of center mass is the belly, and with one shot to the belly you have some chances to survive, with 5 most likely not.

Besides, if the bad guy has a knife and is far enough that you can shoot three times, what is wrong with shooting twice to the legs before aiming for center mass?

[Botellines 0]

Quote

So you think that American police shoot suspects for minor crimes, use their guns are cure-all's for every situation, and are trained executioners. Okaaaay...

It's always fun to watch you destroy your own credibility. Thank you for the entertainment.

Christel´s credibility is just fine. I think it is the American police credibility the one in check, thanks to you.

I am sure that they are trained well enough that they don´t have to shoot the whole clip every time a punk shows a knife. You just make it look like if they don´t shoot 12 times at center mass they will get killed every time. I mean, if that is the case, you may as well replace their guns with AK-47 so they have some chances.

If German police can do it, (and by the way, spanish police too) how come american police can not do it?
I bet they can, it is just not as fun as the old western-style justice.

[MC208B 0]

The cops in Portland Oregon were a bit trigger happy and sometimes very poor shots. They once fired 38 rounds at a drunk they had rousted off a bus. He was hit once in the ass but the other rounds hit buildings in the background after crossing a busy 4 lane street.

Maybe they should all carry a sack of oranges or potatos and throw them at criminals.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If you don't like that definition, then by all means, train them to shoot to wound.

the problem is in the definition of executioner, Bill.

When a cop fires his gun, the goal is to stop the criminal, not to kill him, though the subset of those two overlap closely. And that is why he trains on paper targets.

Actually, I have no idea what sort of targets cops use. I imagine it varies by the individual. Quite a few practice much less than many sport shooters.

[ViperPilot 0]

I hope this douche bag senator gets fuckin robbed at gunpoint on the street, then we'll see about his feelings on scum like that. Maybe for added effect the guy can shoot him...how'd you like that one, Senator Jackass?

[craddock 0]

Quote

Besides, if the bad guy has a knife and is far enough that you can shoot three times, what is wrong with shooting twice to the legs before aiming for center mass?

I am not sure what distance has to do with firing three times with a modern semi-auto and I am not sure it matters much. The difference between shooting to kill vs wound is shot placement. Or at least intended shot placement. If a suspect is coming after a police officer with a knife it does not matter if he is 10 feet or 2 feet away; lethal force is warrented.

One must also consider that the legal system in the US regarding lawsuits. There is something I have no problem with you bashing.

God forbid I ever need to protect myself or my family with lethal force, but if our life is ever in real danger and I have the means, you can bet your ass I am going to try and remove all threats.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

One must also consider that the legal system in the US regarding lawsuits. There is something I have no problem with you bashing.

God forbid I ever need to protect myself or my family with lethal force, but if our life is ever in real danger and I have the means, you can bet your ass I am going to try and remove all threats.

The biggest problem w/ lethal force is as mentioned above...lawsuits. In a perfect world if I could safely dissolve a bad situation by shooting an attacker in the kneecaps to stop him (i.e. he's coming at me with a bat, he's 10 ft away, and I just put a couple .40 rounds through his knees...that fucker's going down). However, guess what, that same guy can and probalby will go to court, and EASILY sue my ass for a ton of money. It doesn't fuckin matter that he was attacking me. Ever heard of the one lawsuit where some dude broke into a lady's house, he fell through the skylight into her kitchen, subsequently cutting himself on a knife laying on the counter. He sued AND WON!!!!

Because of shit like that above, we are not in a perfect world, and if someone comes at me, I'm sending them 6 ft under, no questions asked. If joe blow comes at me and my wife w/ a bat, he's not getting two in the knee, he's getting two to the chest and one to the head (hopefully if I can be that good and clean!...which I am!)

[billvon 2,881]

>When a cop fires his gun, the goal is to stop the criminal, not to kill him . . .

Well, that's the point of this whole thread, right? If they are trained to 'shoot to wound' then you are correct. Killing him may be part of the process but is not _necessarily_ part of it. If they are trained to shoot to kill, then your statement is not correct; stopping him means killing him.

Note that I don't think there's anything wrong with shooting to kill PROVIDING they use very good judgement in when to do so. But we should call it what it is. He's not just stopping someone - once he makes the decision to fire, he has decided to kill them.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Paterson (D-Harlem) wrote that a police officer, under his legislation, "would have to try to shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."

Why wouldn't Mr. Paterson want to sponsor this legislation? Every time a cop shoots to wound a criminal scumbag rather than shooting to end the threat (which may well kill the suspect) that's another one of Mr. Paterson's constituents who will be around to vote for his re-election.

Not much needs to be said about this: it is stupid on its face. I have not delved into the other replies yet, but I noticed right off the bat that Lawrocket started saying something about "once deadly force is justified, you don't hold someone to the 'only as much as necessary to get the job done' standard."

I hope that IF this law passes (it probably has no chance, or so I would hope), Mr. Paterson finds that innocent blood is spilled on his behalf by cops aiming for extremities rather than center-of-mass. Let the death of innocents (bystanders, cops who under stress miss the extremities and then get killed by their targets) be on his head. Fucking shitwipe moron.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Cool, just like in the movies. Just shoot the gun out of his hands from 50 feet away, shooting from the hip, while riding a motorcyle, over cobblestones, at night, while eating sammich.

the asswipe has likely never even seen a gun of any type, let alone shot a handgun

Thanks, rehmwa!


I would add that Paterson should be the guy who is being threatened by a violent criminal when a cop, afraid that he may end up using "too much force," fails to act adequately to save his pathetic ass.


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

..some abstract faceless hypothetical cop that only lives in the imagination of a splintered left wing group.

You mean like the Michigan Militia?
Oh, wait; that's a splintered RIGHT wing group. Completely different. Lawlessness only comes from the left.
Never mind.

Of what "lawlessness" has the Michigan Militia been tried and convicted, as a group?

And exactly where did "LAWLESSNESS" come up? YOU were the first to inject that term in here. Whyzzat?

I mean, this post was really "out there"...

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Scoopy, you are wrong. If adrenaline is taking over control over your well trained actions, you simply are in wrong job and should definately only keep a broom in your hands. (Perhaps to ride home on it)

Your typical condescension aside, you are wrong. We aren't talking about a second match at Der Schutzenhaus after acing the first one, we are discussing a life/death situation.

The 'adrenaline pump' does happen and does affect fine motor skills to a degree, even when you are training regularly. Those who have had to confront a criminal face to face understand this.

For your sake, I hope you are never in that position.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

To kill a simple street gangsta by shooting in his head after he stole an old ladies' wallet is a little harsh, or not? See, JR, this is called the difference. Our police staff is trained to quickly decide on more than ONE solution of a difficult situation. But that's just our forces. We do not train killers.

So you think that American police shoot suspects for minor crimes, use their guns are cure-all's for every situation, and are trained executioners. Okaaaay...

It's always fun to watch you destroy your own credibility. Thank you for the entertainment.

If any post in this thread deserved to be re-quoted, this one was it.
That was the exact implication I took from cristelsabine's post. Ugh, I've just stopped responding to her stuff. I can't. It's madness, and responding to it would be almost certain to get me banned.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

> . . .and are trained executioners.

Uh, they are. The targets they use during training aren't silhouettes of koala bears, they are of people. They are trained to kill. That's what the poll is about, no?

So, bill, no distinction between someone who will kill if he must in order to save other lives from a violent criminal and no other options are viable, and a "trained executioner"?

You really have got to be kidding.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I hope this douche bag senator gets fuckin robbed at gunpoint on the street, then we'll see about his feelings on scum like that. Maybe for added effect the guy can shoot him...how'd you like that one, Senator Jackass?

All right, who the fuck cloned me and gave the clone a dropzone.com account?!


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mnealtx 0]

How's that joke go?

Quote

A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged

Or something similar to that, anyway...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[masterrig 1]

I was trained that if, you can use a 'non fatal' method to subdue someone... do it. If, it comes down to having to use your firearm... shoot to kill. A police officer would have to be 'cool as a cucumber' in a stressfull situation not to mention, a helluva shot to just wound someone. This guy's thinking is 'nice' but, impractical. IMO


Chuck

[SkyDekker 1,398]

Quote

Well, well, there seems to be a disagreement between the two of you over whether lethal force is justified immediately in Germany to stop a dangerous suspect...

Which one of you is wrong?

I see your reading skills haven't improved yet.

Still leaves you to address the Dutch police.

[Scoop 0]

We were taught in our officer safety training that any use of force is potentially lethal. The action you take has to be justified. Ill give you a couple of examples and you tell me if you wouldn't have had adrenaline flowing. these are real and involved my colleagues...

1) Two officers went on a routine visit to a guys house to take details as hed said he'd been burgled. Officers went in, the guy locked the door behind them. Bit unusual, but guess understandably cautious, had been burgled after all. He takes them to what he claims to be the point of entry/exit (a bedroom window) while the officers assess suitability for forensics he shuts the bedroom door behind them and pulls out a samurai sword from under the bed covers. Miraculously both officers were unhurt, one gave him a face full of pepper spray as the other batoned his wrist. In this scenario I would actually suggest a gun would have been ideal. Keep your distance and drop the fucker

2) Double crewed patrol turn up to a domestic, guys gone absolutely banzai. Hes very drunk and also appears to be under influence of drugs. They have to restrain him so hes sprayed twice which has no effect (drugs can make you immune to effects). Hes then batoned on the legs and arms and again he doesnt even flinch. He then picks up a broken bit of glass from the window thats smashed and starts swinging it around in his hand as a weapon despite it cutting his hands to bit. The only solution is a baton strike to the head which takes him down... for a few seconds... and then he starts to get up again at this point back up turns up as had been already running due to violent nature of offence. Again, gun might have been preferable here or certainly suitable candidate for Tazor.

In these high stress situations you cant do fine skills. We have a training scenario where instructor dresses up in a padded suit (FIST suit for those who know it) and attacks us. We have to use whatever we can. They dont tend to go lightly on you either. You have to kick, punch, headbutt, baton strike - do what ever you can. You get tunnel vision and you cant focus on anything other than what your doing. the hardest bit is immediatly after that you have to go and tactically handcuff a non compliant subject. It is one of the most difficult things I have ever done. You are totally useless after that until you've calmed down a bit. A common tactic is to let other officers take over once you've been struggling with someone as they arent as amped up as you are or tired and can deal with things better.

I fail to see how this can be implemented. Sure they might train other forces with it but when it comes to the crunch it will all go out the window. I feel that if I had to, having been in similar, if not as dramatic scenarios as those, I would just shoot in offenders direction as quickly as possible. Fuck lining up the angle of the dangle, hes going to kill you if you dont stop him. But then we're not armed so I wont have to face that responsibility.

If people had an idea what dangers were faced everyday they wouldnt propose silly legislation like this or claim that officers should be super humans immune to fear. One of those officers, cleaned himself up, took some time to get his head together and went back on duty, then went home to his wife and baby and did his family thing. Only human after all. People are often surprised when police show human emotions

[/rant]