St Louis Police Do it Again

izzop said:
Can't they just say "teenager"?
Click to expand...

Well, since the ongoing news story and backdrop to this event is racial unrest ignited by the shooting of an unarmed black teenager, that this shot teenager is also black is an extremely newsworthy aspect of the latest incident. Albeit, that this chap seems to actually have been armed and dangerous.
 
izzop said:
Was thinking the same. However it never appears to happen in the Good Ole' US of A
Click to expand...

It never happens here either or at least not on purpose, if the police shoot you they aim for center mass for an almost guaranteed hit. They haven't got time to be taking pot shots and hoping they disarm them before they start shooting back.
 
Last edited:
It's a danger to the officer and any bystanders if you try doing disarming shots as it's never guaranteed to work. As has been said, you aim for centre mass and go for the kill. However, I believe special forces receive some training in disarming shots, but that'll never spread to the police force.
 
benjii said:
It's a danger to the officer and any bystanders if you try doing disarming shots as it's never guaranteed to work. As has been said, you aim for centre mass and go for the kill. However, I believe special forces receive some training in disarming shots, but that'll never spread to the police force.
Click to expand...

I have never heard of anyone being trained in "disarming shots". You aim to stop the threat and provide safety to others in the area. Ergo you shoot at the biggest lump of meat on the target you can hit. The chest. You look at how the armed response reacted to Lee Rigbys murderers, popped the pair of them in the chest and then immediately went about administering first aid to keep them alive long enough to get them to hospital so they could be tried.

I've only ever seen a "disarmament shot" once in my life and it was during a stand off with US SWAT on TV. A guy was sitting in a road on a patio chair with a revolver and threatening to shoot himself. One of the snipers radioed that he thought he could shoot the revolver as it was hanging between the guys legs. He was given the go-ahead to take it when he thought it was safe to do so. Shot the revolver right out of his hand. But he was using a sniper rifle with a high powered scope and wasn't actually that far away. His target was also sitting relatively still with the gun in his hand dangling between his legs.

 
pepsilol said:
Can't they shoot to disarm rather than shoot to kill?
Click to expand...

No, they aim for centre of mass as trying to carefully tag someone in the arm who may well be moving would be extremely difficult which places passersby at more risk and is much less likely to incapacitate them and stop them getting a shot off and potentially killing the officer.

As for the case itself, it's hard to draw any conclusions this early on so will see what transpires in the coming days, I really hope this doesn't lead to more riots though.
 
Yes... Its really easy to shoot to disarm/injure rather than kill... :rolleyes: You do realise that if someone is coming at you with a gun they intend to use it if necessary. Attempting to disarm or just injure them could result in the officer missing and giving the assailant the opportunity to kill them. Unless of course you think all police in the states are Clint Eastwood and have a deadly accurate aim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom