Police..rubbish at shooting?

I can't imagine reading that news story and my reaction being one of disappointment that nobody died, I actually can't comprehend it. Are you a sociopath?

I just want the police to be better trained at shooting people dead...is that to much to ask?
 
I thought they are only normally authorised to "Shoot to disable"?

Nope, standard procedure is 'shoot to stop', which as mentioned already means aiming for centre mass. If that means death occurs as a result, so be it. Shoot to disable is difficult and dangerous to implement, and it's pointless anyway; a shot aimed at a leg could easily trim an artery.

The pigs need better firearms.

Why? British armed police officers have some of the latest and best weapons and equipment available, there isn't much room for improvement considering their role.
 
People have also survived a self inflicted shotgun blast to the face.

indeed. there was a tv programme last year about suicide survivors, and there was a young guy on it who'd attempted suicide by sticking a shotgun in his mouth. by some cruel twist of fate he managed to survive. tho i should imagine he probably wished he hadn't when ever he looks in the mirror.
 
Back in ye-olde days a chap working on laying railways had a blasting charge of some sort explode near him which impaled his head with a thick steel rod.

Believe one hole was through an eye.

He survived. But subsequently had a really crap life because of its appearance and its effects on his personality.

Phineas Gage is the man I believe you are thinking of, quite remarkable that he survived but it did affect his personality as you say, at least for a time and encouraged theories that specific parts of the brain might control personality.

As for the original post, I'm not totally sure why you'd want shoot to kill to be regular policy? No one dying is one of the better results possible from an armed incident.
 
Back
Top Bottom