Police..rubbish at shooting?

Thrash · 5 Oct 2009 at 01:08

In legal terms, every shot fired by an AFO is accountable, which means if 2 shots are fired the first could be justifiable and the second unjustifiable. This in turn could cause the officer to be up before the court.

For instance. The AFO is confronted by a gunman and perceives an immediate threat, he responds by firing a shot, striking the gunman, centre of mass, causing him to drop. While the gunman is on the ground the AFO discharges a 2nd round, hitting him again. It is later established that the first round had been 100% justifiable, however the 2nd round fired was not justified as the gunman had been disabled by the first. There are of course occasions when the 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) round would be justified, such as if the target had been shot and brought down but still posed a threat.

Training dictates that you continue to fire until the threat has been removed or the target has been stopped. In the case of the news article the target had been stopped, therefore any subsequent discharge by the AFO's would have been unjustified and could see them up on a murder charge, despite the initial shots being justified. Sounds like a text book police operation to me.

Azagoth · 5 Oct 2009 at 02:36

Tefal said:
MP5's and G36's aren't automatic now?

No, not the one's our armed police use from day to day. The ones you see on the streets are semi-auto and only have the two options of 'Safety' and 'Single shot'.

They do however have access to the fully automatic versions, but only for use in times of national emergency or if they've been authorised for deployment by the powers that be.

Tr Insanity · 5 Oct 2009 at 07:15

Tefal said:
lol wut?

"Excuse me sir please don't shoot us while we take you to jail" :/

Sorry , should've made it more clear : Instead of killing the guy , "shoot to disable" then put the guy in jail to stop future threats

agnes · 5 Oct 2009 at 07:28

Busa said:
Come on fellas...shoot to kill...surely!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8289759.stm

Clearly never handled a gun then?

ags

Tefal · 5 Oct 2009 at 08:21

Tr Insanity said:
Sorry , should've made it more clear : Instead of killing the guy , "shoot to disable" then put the guy in jail to stop future threats

How exactly do you plan to "shoot to disable" while making sure he cannot shoot or harm others?

Von Smallhausen · 5 Oct 2009 at 08:32

I am not aware of any police forces that would use fully automatic weapons, even in times of national emergency. Perhaps any AFOs on here could shed any light ?

I don't see a need for such weapons to be employed by the police but I would be interested to hear of any people in the know who know any different.

The only times I have seen fully automatic weapons fired by police instructors is when demonstrating seized weapons.

Thrash · 5 Oct 2009 at 08:42

All weapons I've carried have been semi automatic single fire. I cannot think of a situation where the police would require fully automatic weapons.

King85 · 5 Oct 2009 at 09:05

Shotgun_ned said:
That's just in the movies. In real life they aim for the centre mass since that's the biggest and easiest part of the body to hit, and it's also the best place to hit to stop the person from being a threat.

This ^

meghatronic · 5 Oct 2009 at 09:34

Thrash said:
All weapons I've carried have been semi automatic single fire. I cannot think of a situation where the police would require fully automatic weapons.

Indeed. "Firearms issued to the police are adapted so that they can only fire semi-automatic".

Although, I thought Atomic and MOD police had fully auto/burst/1 capable MP7s.

Busa · 5 Oct 2009 at 10:09

agnes said:
Clearly never handled a gun then?

ags

Well no..................apart from being in the Royal engineers for six years during the switch over from the SLR to the SA 80 and using the Lee enfield 303,browning pistol,bren etc etc etc.

Unlight · 5 Oct 2009 at 10:23

So then its even more confusing why you are making no sense whatsoever then...

agnes · 5 Oct 2009 at 10:30

Busa said:
Well no..................apart from being in the Royal engineers for six years during the switch over from the SLR to the SA 80 and using the Lee enfield 303,browning pistol,bren etc etc etc.

Then you should know all to well that it's not a case of point and squeeze

ags

p.s. to answer the obvious question you will reply to. 5 Rifles.

taliesyn · 5 Oct 2009 at 11:01

Von Smallhausen said:
I am not aware of any police forces that would use fully automatic weapons, even in times of national emergency. Perhaps any AFOs on here could shed any light ?

I don't see a need for such weapons to be employed by the police but I would be interested to hear of any people in the know who know any different.

The only times I have seen fully automatic weapons fired by police instructors is when demonstrating seized weapons.

I know for a fact, having visited the armoury and range, that the police down here have no fully automatic weapons.

Shooting to centre mass is never guaranteed to kill, and it was never designed to.

In the police like everywhere else, you have people who are good shots, and people who are only acceptable shots. Coupled with the pressure they're under when they pull the trigger, and the potential legal and emotional grief it brings them afterwards, I'm surprised they ever manage to hit anything, or even want to join the kevlar brigade in the first place.

Immediate debilitation happens only when the brain stem is severed. Any police officer even attempting a shot like that would end up in clink themselves

Nick1881 · 5 Oct 2009 at 11:02

I read a story in the paper last week where a police officer in the armed police shot a person from the media or something by accident during a demonstration.

He didn't realise the gun had a live round in it, pointed it at the guy and fired. Surely someone in such a position should know that you don't point a gun at someone even if you know it isn't loaded or your finger isn't on the trigger.

edit - here is a link, seems to vary a bit from the version I read in the Sun.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...o;jsessionid=C68239A02B8A884305DB364B421C6D50

meghatronic · 5 Oct 2009 at 11:36

mr_x_plosion said:
He didn't realise the gun had a live round in it, pointed it at the guy and fired. Surely someone in such a position should know that you don't point a gun at someone even if you know it isn't loaded or your finger isn't on the trigger.

Indeed. This is your argument against arms in the UK, we just haven't been brought up with them.

A friend of mine flipped out at his younger brother for pointing an unloaded, uncocked pistol at him on a range (US). He went mental.

You always check a gun is safe. Always.

sixty · 5 Oct 2009 at 11:54

meghatronic said:
They still have to practice marksmanship.

Absolutely, given what I've seen of them on range days.

meghatronic said:
...A friend of mine flipped out at his younger brother for pointing an unloaded, uncocked pistol at him on a range (US). He went mental...

Quite bloody right.

meghatronic · 5 Oct 2009 at 11:57

sixty said:
Absolutely, given what I've seen of them on range days.

I don't know if it is true (i.e. I'm asking), but a policeman friend (he's not ARV/SFO) said they only get one weeks initial training with the Glock and MP5 - not each, one week combined. Then they have specialist training on entering rooms, tactics and so on. The rest of the hands-on gun training is their own on the range.

That seems... dangerous.

Von Smallhausen · 5 Oct 2009 at 11:58

Thanks for that Taliesyn.

One thing I do know is that when I joined up, all I wanted to do was work the ARVs ..... now you couldn't pay me to do it.

I have said before that I would consider quitting the job if I was told I had to carry a firearm.

agnes · 5 Oct 2009 at 12:01

meghatronic said:
Indeed. This is your argument against arms in the UK, we just haven't been brought up with them.

A friend of mine flipped out at his younger brother for pointing an unloaded, uncocked pistol at him on a range (US). He went mental.

You always check a gun is safe. Always.

Just don't point it at anyone you don't intend to shoot. Way I was taught and should be the way no matter what.

ags

Von Smallhausen · 5 Oct 2009 at 12:02

meghatronic said:
I don't know if it is true (i.e. I'm asking), but a policeman friend (he's not ARV/SFO) said they only get one weeks initial training with the Glock and MP5 - not each, one week combined. Then they have specialist training on entering rooms, tactics and so on. The rest of the hands-on gun training is their own on the range.

That seems... dangerous.

To be fair it doesn't take much learning to handle a Glock and an MP5 including making safe, stripping and cleaning ie the very basics.

I think an initial firearms course is about 8 weeks in total and as far as I am aware it is a national standard.

Most people here could learn how to use an automatic pistol including field stripping and cleaning in a couple of hours.

The MP5 is more complex but not a great deal I would have thought.