Botellines 0 #76 March 3, 2006 QuoteIf 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. If he is like 50 feet away, he is still a threat to you if he has the intention. It is just not an inmediate threat. It is just that the law makes no distinction beetwen an inmediate lethal threat and a not so inmediate lethal threat or a possible lethal threat. And that is IMO what this new law is trying to acomplish. There is many people here that advocate for "2 to the chest (center mass) and 1 to the head", i remember reading it several times here. I am not so much for shooting first to the leg as shooting just enough to stop. One shoot to the belly (if you can afford it by the situation) is capable to stop an attacker with a knife and could be survivable. If you keep shooting and aim for the head even if the threat is stopped is not survivable. QuoteWhat you are proposing will actually allow officers to shoot more people, by expanding the parameters on what is allowable. Not really because i am not expanding the definition of lethal threat. My understanding of this law is that it restrain cops from shooting to kill a non inmediate lethal threat. I agree with that. However i will concede that an opponent armed with a gun is always an inmediate lethal threat, so in that situation i agree with the shoot to kill (or until he drops the gun, whatever comes firsts) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #77 March 3, 2006 QuoteQuote 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... If it's justified, the shooter should be found "not guilty" by a jury of his/her peers. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 March 3, 2006 Quote If it's justified, the shooter should be found "not guilty" by a jury of his/her peers. Blues, Dave And they are, in the overwhelming majority of cases. One of the larger problems is that an innocent verdict or a 'no bill' in a criminal trial is not a bar to a civil suit by the attacker or his family... who, of course, will play it up for all it's worth in the media.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #79 March 3, 2006 QuoteSo 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. Nope, but I specifically asked her about her training with regards to fire arm use. Anyways, you and John are free to find a Dutch police officer or dutch police policy book to prove me wrong.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #80 March 3, 2006 Well I called my Uncle and he said your Aunt was wrong...of course he's not Dutch but he did stay in a Holiday Inn Express one time..........it was a long time ago but you COULD call all the HIE and find out when he stayed there. I don't think you will, but you could. Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #81 March 3, 2006 must have been an american HIE, they seem to be the only ones giving feelings of superiority.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #82 March 3, 2006 Quote If he is like 50 feet away, he is still a threat to you if he has the intention. It is just not an inmediate threat. It is just that the law makes no distinction beetwen an inmediate lethal threat and a not so inmediate lethal threat or a possible lethal threat. And that is IMO what this new law is trying to acomplish. There is many people here that advocate for "2 to the chest (center mass) and 1 to the head", i remember reading it several times here. I am not so much for shooting first to the leg as shooting just enough to stop. One shoot to the belly (if you can afford it by the situation) is capable to stop an attacker with a knife and could be survivable. If you keep shooting and aim for the head even if the threat is stopped is not survivable. Knife wounds are often more lethal that gun fire because of the cutting of the arteries, as opposed to the cauterization by the bullet. If you let someone with a knife get within 20-30 ft of you, yuo may be settling for a draw where both of you die. 50ft is 2-3 seconds away. Odds aren't great that you can hit and disable a moving target in that time before he scores a cut to you. Chances of accurately hitting a leg or the gut (as opposed to the chest) on a moving target at 40-50ft aren't very good either, in that 2-3 sec time frame. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #83 March 3, 2006 QuoteMy understanding of this law is that it restrain cops from shooting to kill a non inmediate lethal threat. I agree with that. If the threat is non-immediate, then the cops shouldn't be shooting at him in the first place, even just aiming for his legs. They should withhold fire and try to end the conflict peacefully through other means, such as talk, taser, pepper spray or bean bag gun. If at any time the threat becomes immediate, only then should they shoot to stop/kill. Thus, the way I see it, this law would allow cops the lattitude to shoot people a lot more often than now, and for more minor circumstances. It might actually have the opposite effect from what is intended - killing more suspects than under the current rules of engagement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #84 March 3, 2006 QuoteI specifically asked her about her training with regards to fire arm use. Anyways, you and John are free to find a Dutch police officer or dutch police policy book to prove me wrong.. The only reference I could find to that topic on Google was in a Wikipedia definition, with no supporting reference. There may be some Dutch rule to that effect, but what I question is the context for which it exists. I don't believe that the Dutch would require their police, in an immediate life-threatening situation, to try and use leg shots to save their life. I think it's more likely that this Dutch shoot-to-wound rule applies for other circumstances, like stopping fleeing felons. Those specifics are important, and you haven't provided the details. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #85 March 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf 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. If he is like 50 feet away, he is still a threat to you if he has the intention. It is just not an inmediate threat. Yeah, well, you are not allowed to shoot someone who is not an immediate threat! And even if you shoot for his arm, you just used "deadly physical force." It's not defined after-the-fact as "did he die from the force, or not?" It's defined as "this level of force could reasonably cause death if used." You seem to be out of your depth, here. QuoteIt is just that the law makes no distinction beetwen an inmediate lethal threat and a not so inmediate lethal threat or a possible lethal threat. Are you kidding? That is exactly why you cannot go and shoot someone right after they say, "I'm gonna go home and possibly come back here with my axe and cut your head off." If you shoot that guy, you'll go up for manslaughter. You'd have to be facing the actual threat of that axe, and not from 50 feet away, either. You really don't know what you're talking about in this instance, if what you said above is what you truly believe. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #86 March 3, 2006 QuoteMy understanding of this law is that it restrain cops from shooting to kill a non inmediate lethal threat. I agree with that. Again we see the limit of your understanding. The law already forbids shooting someone who is not an immediate lethal threat. Please explain why another law saying the same thing is needed. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #87 March 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote 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... If it's justified, the shooter should be found "not guilty" by a jury of his/her peers. If it's justified, the shooter should not even have to stand trial. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #88 March 3, 2006 QuoteQuote If it's justified, the shooter should be found "not guilty" by a jury of his/her peers. If it's justified, the shooter should not even have to stand trial. Who gets to decide if it's justified? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #89 March 4, 2006 This is without a doubt a stupid idea. if you have to resort to the use of a firearm then one should shoot to kill. There is no way to tell where a bullet will go once it enters the body. I've seen people shot in the shoulder and found the bullet in the lower abdomen. Shoot to wound is a movie cliche which has no place outside Hollywood.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #90 March 4, 2006 QuoteKnife wounds are often more lethal that gun fire because of the cutting of the arteries, as opposed to the cauterization by the bullet. If you let someone with a knife get within 20-30 ft of you, yuo may be settling for a draw where both of you die. Yeah, well, it all depends of the circumstances. If the officer is cornered or not, if the bad guy is already wounded, if the officer is alone or he has backup. In this especific situation you may be right, however if we generalize there is many situation when the officer faces a possible lethal threat but doesn´t warrant shoot to kill. Quote50ft is 2-3 seconds away. You must be a heck of a runner. QuoteChances of accurately hitting a leg or the gut (as opposed to the chest) on a moving target at 40-50ft aren't very good either, in that 2-3 sec time frame. LOL, Depends on how much the bad guy likes beer. I have friends whose center mass is the belly with no doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #91 March 4, 2006 QuoteIf the threat is non-immediate, then the cops shouldn't be shooting at him in the first place, even just aiming for his legs. They should withhold fire and try to end the conflict peacefully through other means, such as talk, taser, pepper spray or bean bag gun. If at any time the threat becomes immediate, only then should they shoot to stop/kill. I agree, however it seems that the cops are shooting when they shouldn´t be way too often. You will agree with me that if the bad guy hasn´t drawn a weapon he is not an inmediate lethal threat no matter how agressive he is. Especially if the officer has backup, is not cornered or is feets way from the guy. It seems some cops think that they can get still kill the guy. It doesn´t make much sense the shoot to wound thing because any gun wound is potentially lethal, but the spirit of the law which is "do not kill suspects before the trial unless it is totally necesary" is okay with me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #92 March 4, 2006 Quote You seem to be out of your depth, here. You really don't know what you're talking about in this instance, if what you said above is what you truly believe. Again we see the limit of your understanding. Welcome back to SC, i can understand why people in Bonfire don´t like you. LOL, I would start learning some languages for when you get invited out from SC again... May i recomend spanish forum... QuoteThe law already forbids shooting someone who is not an immediate lethal threat. Please explain why another law saying the same thing is needed. Because the first one may not be working. Now, if you have a problem with how this law tries to fix the first law and think is stupid, i invite you to post some ideas on how you would acomplish it. Hey maybe there is some congressman lurking around SC and can get enlightened from your wisdom. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #93 March 4, 2006 QuoteI agree, however it seems that the cops are shooting when they shouldn´t be way too often. OMG, on just what statistics do you base this totally heuristic-seeming statement?? QuoteYou will agree with me that if the bad guy hasn´t drawn a weapon he is not an inmediate lethal threat no matter how agressive he is. That's true, and you will agree with us that NOWHERE is a cop actually statutorily justified in shooting such a person, thus producing a need for this proposed law. QuoteIt doesn´t make much sense the shoot to wound thing because any gun wound is potentially lethal, but the spirit of the law which is "do not kill suspects before the trial unless it is totally necesary" is okay with me. At least in the U.S. (can't really speak for Germany ... ) it has NEVER been the case that the police are supposed to do anything but attempt to apprehend wrongdoers for trial, and IF there is outright danger from the suspects, the police are empowered and (can't speak for England ...) equipped to eliminate a threat if it cannot be defused. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #94 March 4, 2006 Quote Because the first one may not be working. Now, if you have a problem with how this law tries to fix the first law and think is stupid, i invite you to post some ideas on how you would acomplish it. Hey maybe there is some congressman lurking around SC and can get enlightened from your wisdom. Ok... so we're passing this law, and we really mean it this time! If the first law is bad, rewrite it...don't tack another on top to clarify it. This new law is a bad idea and will endanger the cop on the street and innocent bystanders, due to a higher chance of missed shots due to a completely bogus requirement to "shoot to wound".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #95 March 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe law already forbids shooting someone who is not an immediate lethal threat. Please explain why another law saying the same thing is needed. Because the first one may not be working. Hey, the laws against murder, and speeding, are also not working very well. I think it's time to pass a second law to make murder illegal, and a second law to make speeding illegal. QuoteNow, if you have a problem with how this law tries to fix the first law and think is stupid, i invite you to post some ideas on how you would acomplish it. What is it -- please articulate it -- about this proposed law (the text of which I highly doubt you have familiarized yourself with, nor have I) that you think is meant to address some inadequacy in the law that already forbids shooting and killing a person who presents a lethal threat? I get the sense that this proposal seeks to criminalize the totally justifiable policy of shooting to stop, which in the interest of perserving innocent civilian or police lives is usually done in a manner that could well end up being lethal. It is not about "making sure that cops don't shoot to kill when they could apprehend a suspect without shooting at all" -- it seems to be about forcing cops to attempt nonlethal measures even when they are 100% justified just because some asshole legislator from Harlem thinks the life of a violent criminal is no less worthy than the lives of good people and cops. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #96 March 4, 2006 Quote Quote50ft is 2-3 seconds away. You must be a heck of a runner. How bad of one are you? 15 seconds for 100m is a pretty mediocre time. Do the math - 15meters is just over 2s. Accounting for the partial second to accelerate and some might take 3. 340lb football (football, not futbol) players can do 40 yards in under 5 seconds. QuoteYou will agree with me that if the bad guy hasn´t drawn a weapon he is not an inmediate lethal threat no matter how agressive he is. If the bad guy won't show his hands, that is just cause for presuming he is about to draw a weapon. Only a dumbass would allow a fair fight, and only an asshole would mandate that he must. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #97 March 4, 2006 Quote In Reply To 50ft is 2-3 seconds away. You must be a heck of a runner huh? That is not particularly fast at all. 50 ft is not very far over here in the States. That's about 15 meters That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #98 March 4, 2006 It's been consistently shown that an attacker can cover 7~10 yards in 1.5~2 seconds. Anyone within that range with a weapon could be shown to be a lethal threat.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #99 March 4, 2006 Most armed encounters for LEO's are in low light conditions, within 3 feet, within 3 seconds. If this bill is true, it's fucking stupid. Beyond all the posturing on here, I live this shit every day. Any further details Pm me for a ride-along........ Blue Skies "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #100 March 4, 2006 legal shoot distance is still considered to be 21 feet when it is any weapon other than a gun or projectile Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
