AFAIK police marksmen use the same technique as army marksmen i.e. aim for the largest part of the body, the torso to give the greatest chance of actually hitting the suspect. There is no such thing as shoot to wound, or indeed shoot to kill - that refers to an alleged policy of shooting someone without attempting to arrest them. How many people survive being shot by a police marksman?
Manhunt in Northumbria on BBC
- Thread starter footman
- Start date
AFAIK police marksmen use the same technique as army marksmen i.e. aim for the largest part of the body, the torso to give the greatest chance of actually hitting the suspect. There is no such thing as shoot to wound, or indeed shoot to kill - that refers to an alleged policy of shooting someone without attempting to arrest them. How many people survive being shot by a police marksman?
Menezes agrees with you.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 402
- Location
- Worcestershire
Call of Ignorance: Modern Stupidity! (Not @ You Quotee BTW)
You could also blame the media, you only ever really hear of the SAS when they are in a high profile public setting.
My Grandad is former SAS, and some of his former squad mates have written books about their endeavours in certain countries. Yeah they are trained to kill, efficiently, silently etc etc but they are also trained to assess any situation better than almost every other Army regiment in the whole World.
TBH I don't think it's a totally incorrect statement though, as it's most likely this blokes intention to commit suicide by Cop/whomever else.
The way I see it - The stig can drive a lambo round a track very well - yet in a different situation - say on a public road, he would also be able to adapt to that situation and drive differently. Just like these guys could adapt to the different situation....it's what they are trained to do.
I love this forum; reminds me that I need to be far clearer in explaining what I mean.
The point I was trying to make was in relation to rpyts intimation that the SAS would have handled the JCdM situation differently.
As was seen in Operation Flavious when the SAS believe someone to be a terrorist they will shoot and continue to shoot until they know the threat has been removed completely. When you look at Operation Nimrod, again the targets were shot until the threat was removed - in one case - from what I recall - one of them was hit by over 30 rounds.
I suppose I was also referring to CQB as opposed to marksmen.
Marksmen will always aim for the largest part of the body, but then as they are generally using heavier calibre rounds, they can put someone down and they will stay down almost regardless of where they hit.
In many ways I think the terminology also partially changes (and potentially the mind set as well). With the military you tend to think and talk of targets, with the police you talk of suspects. When I mentioned shoot to kill and shoot to wound, I was talking more about the intentions and immediate follow up.
The police will shoot someone only if they have to, but they are not intentionally trying to kill that person. If that person dies as a result of being shot, thats that. However with the two operations I mentioned earlier the intention was to kill and they made sure of it.
On a final note, I hold the SAS in very high regard and along with the SBS they represent the best of the best. They are encouraged to think things through while still being able to react instinctively. I do not believe that it would be an appropriate use of their time, skill and limited manpower to involve them in the hunt for a lone nutter who has (as far as I am aware) no military training what so ever.
The point I was trying to make was in relation to rpyts intimation that the SAS would have handled the JCdM situation differently.
As was seen in Operation Flavious when the SAS believe someone to be a terrorist they will shoot and continue to shoot until they know the threat has been removed completely. When you look at Operation Nimrod, again the targets were shot until the threat was removed - in one case - from what I recall - one of them was hit by over 30 rounds.
I suppose I was also referring to CQB as opposed to marksmen.
Marksmen will always aim for the largest part of the body, but then as they are generally using heavier calibre rounds, they can put someone down and they will stay down almost regardless of where they hit.
In many ways I think the terminology also partially changes (and potentially the mind set as well). With the military you tend to think and talk of targets, with the police you talk of suspects. When I mentioned shoot to kill and shoot to wound, I was talking more about the intentions and immediate follow up.
The police will shoot someone only if they have to, but they are not intentionally trying to kill that person. If that person dies as a result of being shot, thats that. However with the two operations I mentioned earlier the intention was to kill and they made sure of it.
On a final note, I hold the SAS in very high regard and along with the SBS they represent the best of the best. They are encouraged to think things through while still being able to react instinctively. I do not believe that it would be an appropriate use of their time, skill and limited manpower to involve them in the hunt for a lone nutter who has (as far as I am aware) no military training what so ever.
Last edited:
In any case the article I read in the paper itself said it wasn't the SAS per se, but 'special forces attached to the SAS' whatever that means. And it said they would simply be providing some help tracking Moat, not actually taking part in apprehending or shooting him.
He is a fitness freak, a capable angler and an expert trapper of animals like rabbits. A close pal warned: "If he doesn't want to be caught, he won't be."
The 37-year-old gunman idolises the SAS and is hooked on TV survival programmes....thats it then...he saw it on the tv...they will never catch him now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 5,280
- Location
- Midlands, UK
Never said i was an expert, armchair or otherwise....troll on!!
edscdk said:
Thanks, that's a little more informative than the other reply i got. However i don't think they'd need to land to check out the thermal profile of everything they find as they should be able to tell from the shape surely?
You clearly think you know more than you do.
Unfortunately its quite hard to distinguish - the resolution on the thermal cameras is not that good.
A person lying in a foetal position, could look like a fox/badger etc.
Some of it they could obviously dismiss but a lot might need checked out.
Don
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,179
- Location
- In a house
Hunting for a lone gun-man with no clear motives (other than killing police) is very difficult. Just think about the logistics. Its not like tracking down a bloke who has got a few unpaid traffic offences and living in a populated area.
He is clearly an accomplished "outdoorsman" which might not make him a tactical military genius, but it means he will be able to survive comfortably and evade capture by avoiding large population areas for long lengths of time.
I think the majority of the police action is about being shown to be doing something high profile and visible to keep people happy. A lot of the real work is going on quietly behind the scenes away from the prying eyes of the media.
He is clearly an accomplished "outdoorsman" which might not make him a tactical military genius, but it means he will be able to survive comfortably and evade capture by avoiding large population areas for long lengths of time.
I think the majority of the police action is about being shown to be doing something high profile and visible to keep people happy. A lot of the real work is going on quietly behind the scenes away from the prying eyes of the media.
Which in your eyes could be what? The way i see it is a man who knows he will go to jail for a long time is on the run.. he might not even have any intentions of killing again despite what the letter or whatever said. One man isn't exactly easy to find, could be 100miles from where everything happened, even more..
Or he could have just shot himself somewhere so.
Some people go unseen for years and years.. and most likely will never be found
The tent was a distraction, he's already over the border!
Goan Raoul! Defy the odds!
so its acceptable these days for a man to shoot 3 people and become some sort of hero?
