Justified or gun happy?
- Thread starter Kronos
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
How do you fully disable a potential shooter with a single bullet? Its just not an option.
And how is this done? It's not Hollywood.
If the threat exist they will shoot center mass as they are more likely to hit their target. Even the police here do that.
Even members of the public who go for their concealed weapons license, are taught shoot to kill. Never shoot to disable. Two shots to the mass area. If they keep on coming, pop another two their way.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,077
- Location
- Derby
I would have thought that the reason is that should you ever be in that position you would be fighting for your life. In that situation the last thing you want is for the other shooter to be able to shoot back.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 3,053
- Location
- ireland
I don't get why one officer can't flank the kid from behind rather than just using deadly force straight away.
I think the training in America is wrong. How many times have multiple officers opened fire on the same target firing a tonne of bullets into him when it's probably not necessary.
Why don't cops shoot people in the leg or the arm? Why are they always intending to kill the target?
Sure if someone is going to open fire on cops then by all means shoot to kill. There are definite situations cops can shoot the target but not kill him but it just seems accepted for cops to shoot to kill without hesitation.
The kid only has himself to blame the cops probably feared for their lives and there is no way u could tell tht gun is fake if u are 5-10 yards away and it's being raised towards u in the heat of the moment when u only have a second to react.
All I'm wondering though was it possible to disarm without killing him? Probably was.
I think the training in America is wrong. How many times have multiple officers opened fire on the same target firing a tonne of bullets into him when it's probably not necessary.
Why don't cops shoot people in the leg or the arm? Why are they always intending to kill the target?
Sure if someone is going to open fire on cops then by all means shoot to kill. There are definite situations cops can shoot the target but not kill him but it just seems accepted for cops to shoot to kill without hesitation.
The kid only has himself to blame the cops probably feared for their lives and there is no way u could tell tht gun is fake if u are 5-10 yards away and it's being raised towards u in the heat of the moment when u only have a second to react.
All I'm wondering though was it possible to disarm without killing him? Probably was.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 511
- Location
- Scotland
http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
Edit (from article): "The experts we consulted agreed that advocates who push a shoot-to-wound agenda appear to understand little about human dynamics, ballistics, tactics, force legalities or the challenges officers face on the street. Chudwin has found that these critics of police practices can often be enlightened if they are invited to experience force decision-making scenarios on a firearms simulator.
Avery has a more dramatic, if fanciful, idea. "Put them in a cage with a lion," he suggests. "Then let's see if they shoot to wound."
America / England ?? its all the same deal. Shoot to kill. If the perp survives, then he just got lucky. Another reason they shoot for the mass, is so that less chances of a bullet missing its intended target. Go for a leg shot, its easier to miss and take out an innocent bystander.
Most cases guns are used in a life or death scenario. Occasionally it goes wrong. But for the most part, if a cop shoots at someone, its because of a life or death threat.
It would be nice to hear witness accounts (though they can sometimes be a little one sided, depending on who's the witness) Did the kid go for the draw ? if so, justifiable or did the cop get a little trigger happy?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 3,053
- Location
- ireland
Every situation is different though, I agree there are times where it is necessary for a cop to shoot to kill. I'm certain though there are a lot of times a cop doesn't need to shoot to kill.
Suspect has a gun shoot to kill, surely that's treating different scenarios the same way which is wrong.
Should be different responses for different situations that's all I'm saying.
If I was in a cage with a lion I would shoot to kill if he was coming for me. How ever if he was a threat to me but not approaching me I wouldn't shoot. Obviously if a lion us going for u he is definitely going to kill so u have no other option.
Last edited:
So neither officer can now fire as they're in each others firing line?
and what does being behind him do other than mean you cant see his hands when you order him to raise them and means if he turns around to see what the yel lwas about you have to shoot him because it may be drawn and ready.
not without massive risk to the officers and civilians.
go to a Airsoft ground and speak to the guys one of them can have a gun and be the "innocent" you can have a gun and be the officer run through some scenarios (loads of time to between matches) and see just how many times your tactics work and how many result in him dead, you dead or bystander dead.
this actually sounds like fun and i may go do this this weekend.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 3,053
- Location
- ireland
Does he have to be directly behind him? Can he not come at him from a slightly different angle that is not directly behind him? Especially a kid they should only fire at him if it's a last resort.
Ok so now hes kinda behind him what then? (still putting the officer at risk from each other though but we'll ignore that for now)
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 511
- Location
- Scotland
I totally agree that context is important and I wasn't really referring to the specific scenario discussed in this thread, more just addressing the point made by several posters about shooting to wound as opposed to kill.
The link explains the science and reasons behind this logic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 3,053
- Location
- ireland
If the officer approaching the target from his blind spot can also shoot him if he sees him reaching for the gun. Neither cop gets hit then if he has to fire.
Also the officer can just tell him he has 2 officers pointing guns at him and should drop the weapon.
If he reaches for the gun fire away.
All I'm saying is deady force doesn't necessarily have to be used every time someone has a gun.
Last edited:
So whats different here?
Kid still gets shot.
I'm asking why you think "flanking" would have resulted in him not being shot. as opposed to shot from a different angle.
right...
They told him to put his hands up and he went for the gun.
in your scenario same thing would have happened he still would be dead, just after some slightly awkward "flanking" manouver in an open park field.
he had two officers pointing guns at him this time, and both of them insight rather than just one.
But he did reach for a weapon. So it doesn't matter where they were stood by your logic. He still would have been shot.
It's not feasible to shoot to wound. With a short barrelled weapon at anything over 5m and its centre mass or nothing. And that's ignoring stress, adrenaline or distractions.
It's not feasible to shoot to wound. With a short barrelled weapon at anything over 5m and its centre mass or nothing. And that's ignoring stress, adrenaline or distractions.