"Shoot to Wound"

[rehmwa 2]

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.

cut it out - if you read my posts, I do not like the splintered groups on either end. in this thread, this is definitely a lefty.

hell, I even noted it would the position of a "splinter", that means a small group/portion. I wasn't even trying to attribute the nutty thinking to the entire liberal base - I suspect most people think the proposal is nuts, from both sides of politics.

and I don't know where you got lawlessness only on the left from at all. let me know and I'll try to clarify

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

• Quote

[councilman24 36]

Were taught to shoot to kill or shoot to stop? Usually it's center of mass or pelvis depending on training. This is EXPECTED or AKNOWLEDGED to be lethal force, but is INTENDED to stop.

I would call shooting to kill what a sniper does. Head shot to immediately eliminate any further action. Not the normal officer response to the need for lethal force.

Some/Many/most officers shoot there firearm to qualify and that's it. Expecting moderately trained officers to pick and choose their 4 inch target on a bicep or thigh, moving, in less than optimum range conditions, after either physical exertion or physiological responses to fear, is silly.

If any shot toward a person is a shot that may kill, and only justified when death is an acceptable outcome.

Of course there are exceptions. Most vivid is the police sniper shooting the pistol out of the hand of a suicidal man threatening others in the middle of a street, sitting on a chair IIRC. I'm sure a follow up fatal shoot was waiting.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[nacmacfeegle 0]

If you're gonna shoot them, shoot them like you mean it. Anything else is just a practical application nightmare.

Whether or not you should be shooting them is another entirely different discussion and a quick search will soon put that one to rest.

For once, I think I agree with you on a shooting matter.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[masterrig 1]

I was told if, I drew my weapon, shoot to kill. I was also told that if I shot to 'wound', I'd probably just piss him off. If, someone were to turn on me and I felt 'strongly' that my life or the life of an innocent 3rd. party is at stake... kill him. I was told to aim for the 'body'. If, that is to be worded as shooting to 'stop', fine with me. I pull a gun... I'm going to 'stop' him.


Chuck

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

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.

Am I the correct recipient of your post?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[JohnnyD 0]

Without getting on either side of it, how can someone propose a law that goes completely against every bit of training LEOs have ever received and expect things to improve?
Regardless of whether you are for or against shooting to wound, just passing a law isn't going to change anything except get cops put on trial, which will make the population less safe because there are more cops on trial and fewer on the job. Not to mention tax payers will have to foot the bills for both the cops on administrative leave while their trials are pending and the DAs whose case load is increased.
Election year politics.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

Am I the correct recipient of your post?

no, it was mean for JR.

[speedy 0]

Quote

Ooops! It turned out that the guy had an extremely realistic toy gun

O.K. I guess you have got me there! I am definately not going to start an arguement with you about when it's justified or not. I will always lose!

So, you are right
Shoot the bastards to kill

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

> . . .and are trained executioners.

Uh, they are... They are trained to kill. That's what the poll is about, no?

There's a difference between killing someone in self defense, and being a judge, jury and executioner on the street. "Executioner" implies that a cop is shooting suspects simply because he alone judges them to be guilty, circumventing the legal system and a finding of guilt by a jury. Cops aren't trained to do that.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

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?

If he's far enough away that you have the luxury of time to fire two extra shots, then you shouldn't be shooting in the first place. For example, if he's 50 yards away, he's not an immediate threat to your life until he's within, say, 50 feet. Prior to that, he could cease his charge, and then you would have shot him in the legs for nothing. When he's within 50', then you shoot as a last resort, and you shoot to stop/kill.

What you are proposing will actually allow officers to shoot more people, by expanding the parameters on what is allowable.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

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.

You haven't responded to the fact that christelsabine's testimony about Germany contradicts your own.

Nor have you provided any reference to support your contention about police deadly force policy in the Netherlands.

You should take care of your own homework, before making a personal attack on my reading skills.

• Quote

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

Nor have you provided any reference to support your contention about police deadly force policy in the Netherlands.

I have before, but you wouldn't believe me anyways.

I have an aunt who is an active member of the Dutch police force.

[steve1 5]

I guess I have mixed feelings on this one. I agree with John...In an life threatening situation, when the adrenaline is pumping, it's going to be hard to make that shot (if you are using a pistol). How many gun fights do you hear about well trained police officers shooting multiple times before making a hit on a bad guy. Trying a fancy, wounding shot with a pistol, is probably going to be hard to do. Probably you will end up dead before you accomplish that task.

Shooting for center of mass makes a lot more sense to me. Trying to just wing the guy a little when his intent is to kill you doesn't seem smart to me.

But then again, trying to decipher what another's intent is difficult to. You may have only a split second to read a scenario and then react (or die).

But then again....I've seen scenarios where the bad guy didn't really need to be shot. There are a lot of really great police officers out there who I truly respect. But there are also some who are actually itching to put a bullet into someone. (If they can get away with it they'll do it.) Sometimes I wonder if the law is always fair or right when they sort things out later. After someone dies from gaping bullet wound, and maybe it didn't need to happen.

I knew a guy like that once. There were two different people he shot. From the sounds of things it could have been avoided both times, but since he was warranted to use lethal force he got off on it, both times.

There were other situations when he used really poor judgment in the line of duty. He was a sargent before they finally ran him off. One time he ordered some other officers to fire tear gas into a house that had young children inside. They finally got rid of him for this and some of the other crap he pulled over the years. But the shootings he did were written off as perfectly okay.

One of them was suicidal teenager who had a 22 rifle. He would point the gun at his head, then point it at the crowd and then back at the crowd. So he snuck up close and shot this young fellow through the chest. Luckily the kids lived. Maybe that was a good call, but I wonder.

The first shooting he did was about a year before he became a full fledged policeman. He was working as a live in house-sitter for a woman's fraternity house. Some drunk college kid came in on a panty raid one night....So he again snuck up behind him and hit him over the head with a revolver. The gun went off by accident, and shot a hole through this kids head. He lived too, but was never the same again.....Next thing you know this guy is a cop.

I sure hope this guy got out of that line of work. I know police academies try to weed out people like that, but a lot slip through the cracks.....Steve1

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I have an aunt who is an active member of the Dutch police force.

Second-hand recall from your aunt isn't good enough. Show me the policy, and under what circumstances it requires "shoot to wound" versus "shoot to kill".

Oh, and you conveniently ignored Part I of my questions, once again. Could it be you don't have a good answer?

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

Second-hand recall from your aunt isn't good enough. Show me the policy, and under what circumstances it requires "shoot to wound" versus "shoot to kill".

Do you know how to read Dutch? Like I said, you wouldn't believe me.

The 1st part? About who was right Christel or I? I said it was my understanding...hence it could well be I was/am wrong on the German police thing. For anybody with an average understanding of the English language, that would be a normal conclusion.

In the end I think it is pretty clear that you know more about Dutch police policy than a Dutch police officer....

[billvon 2,450]

>"Executioner" implies that a cop is shooting suspects simply
> because he alone judges them to be guilty . . .

That is precisely what often happens. A criminal pulls a gun, turns and flees. The cop yells "Stop or I shoot!" The criminal does not stop; he keeps running away, towards a getaway car. He is about to turn a corner.

Now, at that point he poses no further _immediate_ threat to the cop, but the cop may decide (using the rules concerning deadly force that he works under) that he poses a threat to society and act to end his life. He may have to make that decision in a quarter of a second.

>Cops aren't trained to do that.

See above. That's why they have rules on deadly force. The supreme court has ruled that a police officer can use deadly force if his life is in immediate danger - or if he suspects someone else's may be. That means making a split second decision on what the criminal might do in the future, based on what he has already done and everything else the cop knows about the criminal. He has to do in a second what a jury can take weeks to decide, which is one reason a cop's job is not an easy one.

A good article on this:

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050327/NEWS02/503270385/1019/NEWS03

And again, that's pretty much what this thread is about - whether or not shooting to kill every time is a good idea.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

he knows the nuance involved, but having made the statement, he's prepared to engage in verbal gymnastics for weeks to defend the claim.

[billvon 2,450]

>he's prepared to engage in verbal gymnastics for weeks to defend the claim.

Would "trained killer" be more to your liking?

I think a lot of people like the idea of armed cops enforcing the law but don't like to think about what that means. It means we train cops to kill. Use any words you want to describe that - but they are not just protecting themselves, and they do not just shoot to wound. I'm not fond of euphemisms that let people avoid thinking about the consequences of their decisions/beliefs.

[livendive 8]

Quote

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.

Overall it's a stupid idea, but I like this part. If you shoot an unarmed person, you should be put on trial for manslaughter at a minimum, regardless of whether you were in uniform at the time. That said, once deadly force is the only reasonable option, I think one should use it rather than try some "shoot to wound" approach. I don't see how it would be all that enforceable anyhow, as an officer could simply say "I WAS shooting for his leg/arm. I just missed!"

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>he's prepared to engage in verbal gymnastics for weeks to defend the claim.

Would "trained killer" be more to your liking?

doesn't change anything. Your words promote the premise that cops intend to kill, and excepting the possibility of cops that are itching to pull the triggers, that's not reality. Police officers are people - they will avoid the death of suspects if possible. Often it is not.

It's the difference between shooting for center mass, and putting a gun to the temple and pulling ( Or using a high powered scope and aiming for the head, if we want to talk about FBI agents gone amuck.).

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

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.

Makes sense. After all, if you draw and fire a weapon at someone, whatever you later claim to have been aiming at is irrelevant: you will be deemed to have used deadly physical force.

Now, if you were justified (i.e. felt a credible and grievous threat to self) when you pulled your gun, you pretty much might as well kill the guy, because being upheld for shooting in the first place is tantamount to being upheld to killing your attacker, since your action in firing at all is considered "deadly."

And killing your attacker means he can't make counter-claims when you truly knew he was trying to kill you or cause you grievous bodily harm. Do you really need some scumbag criminal making shit up and trying to turn things around and claim you were the aggressor?

-

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

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.

Ahh, nice, exactly the kind of comment that would get me banned.

Um, you seem to have replied to cristelsabine even though she didn't write that quote. Hmmm.

-

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

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

So, your colleagues in this case did not even have access to guns? You are talking about British police? Most of whom do not get to carry guns despite facing threats like this all the time?

Quote

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 might go so far as to say that if people had an idea what dangers you faced every day they would not agree to having a mostly-not-armed police force!

I mean, really.

-

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Nor have you provided any reference to support your contention about police deadly force policy in the Netherlands.

I have before, but you wouldn't believe me anyways.

I have an aunt who is an active member of the Dutch police force.

So like a flatworm, you somehow are able to access all of her knowledge?

That's like saying people should take my advice on automobile insurance matters because my dad spent 38 years in the business.

-

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

Overall it's a stupid idea, but I like this part. If you shoot an unarmed person, you should be put on trial for manslaughter at a minimum, regardless of whether you were in uniform at the time.

But what of the fact that there are instances where shooting an unarmed person IS justified?

Something called "disparity of force," such as one person with a gun surrounded by five angry guys who are talking about smashing his skull... Or one woman with a gun surrounded by two or three guys talking about how much fun it's gonna be to rape her...

Quote

That said, once deadly force is the only reasonable option, I think one should use it rather than try some "shoot to wound" approach. I don't see how it would be all that enforceable anyhow, as an officer could simply say "I WAS shooting for his leg/arm. I just missed!"

LOL! But but but... cops are so well-trained! (Even though most of them fire about 50 rounds a year or something, just to show that their guns are not plugged with rust...)

-

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