Center Mass: Why Police and Soldiers Shoot to Stop instead of Shooting to Wound

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: deadeyedick



Perhaps. But it's apparent that the idea that not every problem can be solved with a hug is quite clearly out of your reach.

not quite allthough i would not mind hugging any of you and that hug could go very far but i am not above pulling a trigger myself. i see the need for both forces but i see a bigger need to know when each must be applied and to see the other side use the most beneficial force.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: budski

that is correct. however imo everything we do in the flesh including submitting ourselves to training is always governed by spiritual forces. so no matter how hard we fight for or against the policy of the t shot it will not change and our arguments are just reenforcing a policy and way of life that is likely not understood by most but has relevance to us in the grand scheme of things. meaning that however horrible the result of the policy it has to be a part of the mans plan and one day somewhere else we will all look back and be greatful for the good and the bad.

An interesting point, but a different conversation, and one which requires a belief in spirituality which some don't have, and having no desire to force my beliefs onto others, or even admit that I have a belief system, It's a conversation I'd rather not have.

a reply to: budski

And as I said, you would have to dig a lot deeper into those statistics. You keep citing a "successful" engagement. The FBI doesn't collect distance data for "routine" shootouts. They collect distance data for shootouts in which at least one officer was killed by the assailant. Then that data doesn't take into account how far the distance was when the engagement began, but how far the distance was when the officer was overcome by the attacker.

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: budski



that is correct. however imo everything we do in the flesh including submitting ourselves to training is always governed by spiritual forces. so no matter how hard we fight for or against the policy of the t shot it will not change and our arguments are just reenforcing a policy and way of life that is likely not understood by most but has relevance to us in the grand scheme of things. meaning that however horrible the result of the policy it has to be a part of the mans plan and one day somewhere else we will all look back and be greatful for the good and the bad.

An interesting point, but a different conversation, and one which requires a belief in spirituality which some don't have, and having no desire to force my beliefs onto others, or even admit that I have a belief system, It's a conversation I'd rather not have.

that sounds fair except one huge factor. If it is true that we have souls and spiritual influences effect our lives then we would be ignoring the truth in the matter and all our time spent would just be in vein because from the start we set aside the truth to have a debate about the truth of why we continue to have the policies and training of shoot to kill every time. it would be the same as not loading a weapon before battle.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: budski

And as I said, you would have to dig a lot deeper into those statistics. You keep citing a "successful" engagement. The FBI doesn't collect distance data for "routine" shootouts. They collect distance data for shootouts in which at least one officer was killed by the assailant. Then that data doesn't take into account how far the distance was when the engagement began, but how far the distance was when the officer was overcome by the attacker.

Actually, the data is recorded gun crime in the U.S.
Whatever.
I'm satisfied that handgun engagements are very short range affairs, that handguns are relatively inaccurate and that because of this, training to aim for the largest part of the target is a no brainer.

That's my position, my opinion, and it's not going to change because some stranger wants to challenge official stats collated over a long period of time without offering anything more concrete than an opinion as to stats he hasn't even seen, but disagrees with, with no counter evidence.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: budski



that is correct. however imo everything we do in the flesh including submitting ourselves to training is always governed by spiritual forces. so no matter how hard we fight for or against the policy of the t shot it will not change and our arguments are just reenforcing a policy and way of life that is likely not understood by most but has relevance to us in the grand scheme of things. meaning that however horrible the result of the policy it has to be a part of the mans plan and one day somewhere else we will all look back and be greatful for the good and the bad.

An interesting point, but a different conversation, and one which requires a belief in spirituality which some don't have, and having no desire to force my beliefs onto others, or even admit that I have a belief system, It's a conversation I'd rather not have.

that sounds fair except one huge factor. If it is true that we have souls and spiritual influences effect our lives then we would be ignoring the truth in the matter and all our time spent would just be in vein because from the start we set aside the truth to have a debate about the truth of why we continue to have the policies and training of shoot to kill every time. it would be the same as not loading a weapon before battle.

That huge factor you speak of is one word: IF.
And y'know, If my Aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle.

a reply to: budski

the comparison is not valid because a woman having nuts is physical where spiritual influences effect the physical. we can not just throw out the possible spiritual factor because it is not physical and if we went by if the belief in spirits is majorly accepted worldwide then we should include it somewhat as a possibility because the thought that they do not exist is in the minority amoung what people believe. actually at this point in history we can see that just about every civilization has always believed in them.

I will leave you with my thought that most fatal shootings happen because a soul is ready to leave this place and they carefully plan the event and prepare the scene including even contacting the one who gives the death and that it is that reason that we still have the policy t kill even though we have non lethel tech that can stop someone just as quick and effective as a lead injection does without putting any officer of the law or military member in harms way.

a reply to: budski

Ahhh. I'm sorry. When were you at my house? When did we hang out so I could tell you I've never looked at any stats?

It's cool though. Attack the "stranger" for disagreeing with your assertions. Makes sense ️️deuces brah

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: projectvxn



the topic was well addressed. it requires one to think and ask why do people carring toy guns and sticks in public to get three to the t for doing nothing criminal.



imagine for a moment you have a soul and that your soul wants out of this life because something better awaits them but sucide is not an option. one quick option would be to present yourself to a cop holding a toy gun. Even if no one wants to admit it this is the reason for the lethality of weapons to exist in our world because other tech can do the job just as well these days.



the comment about a big difference in police and military should be clear.



in the epic the bull would be the gun and the ones calling for non lethel means would be the people of the town refusing to accept that a love one wanted to die.

Actually you're not on topic at all. The topic is about why police and trained civilians don't shoot to wound. You're bringing in an argument that's irrelevant to the thread.



Also, I'm normally not a grammar Nazi because it's rather pointless but your lack of capital letters at the beginning of your sentences makes your posts difficult to read and even more difficult to take seriously. It's the most basic rule of grammar and should be second nature to anyone who has pinky fingers.

you are just wrong!

the relevence in my post is that it is a spiritual answer as to why in situations certain people are ordered to shoot to kill. you are just butt hurt over something and choose to ignore my point or you are too shallow to put it together.

the most telling part of it all is how you come out attacking my first post even though it was in agreement with you and the other posters that did not bother to try to get it. but yea i am sure the reason you could not understand it is because of a lower case letter.

I'm not wrong and I did "bother to try to get it." Just because I disagree with what you're saying and point out that it's off-topic does not mean that I don't "get it."

You are bringing a metaphysical/spiritual angle into a discussion about tactics. You are off-topic.

It's similar to someone turning a scientific discussion into a religious debate. The discussion was not about the spiritual nature behind the "why" of fatal shootings because that's entirely subjective and the material for another thread.

Also, there is much more than your lack of capitalization that make your posts difficult to understand. I've noticed it in other threads as well. I'm not attacking you personally in any way... I'm just saying that you don't always do a very good job of articulating the point you're trying to make which can and does lead to misunderstandings as well as apparent frustration on your part.

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: budski

And as I said, you would have to dig a lot deeper into those statistics. You keep citing a "successful" engagement. The FBI doesn't collect distance data for "routine" shootouts. They collect distance data for shootouts in which at least one officer was killed by the assailant. Then that data doesn't take into account how far the distance was when the engagement began, but how far the distance was when the officer was overcome by the attacker.

Actually, the data is recorded gun crime in the U.S.
Whatever.
I'm satisfied that handgun engagements are very short range affairs, that handguns are relatively inaccurate and that because of this, training to aim for the largest part of the target is a no brainer.

That's my position, my opinion, and it's not going to change because some stranger wants to challenge official stats collated over a long period of time without offering anything more concrete than an opinion as to stats he hasn't even seen, but disagrees with, with no counter evidence.

I think you're being very defensive over a non-issue.

It was simply pointed out that the range data is not very well recorded and you're making some assumptions that aren't necessarily supported by good data. Trust me, I've heard the same claims you're making many many times but it doesn't make them completely infallible.

Here's a link that supports Shamrock6's statement:

Link

Sometimes you have to calm down and make sure you're correct before defending yourself.

When I shot last years deer I shot through his front right shoulder and destroyed half of his heart. I still tracked that deer for about 50 yards. He left a hell of a blood trail and was easy to find but I was amazed he got as far as he did with so much damage. This year my daughter spined her deer and it went down immediately and died almost instantly. I imagine a human has more fight in them but have no idea and really never want to know. I do know in the CPL class I took they said to shoot until the threat has STOPPED.

a reply to: Answer

Thanks for posting. I was having issues linking from my phone and didn't want to post something sounding like "you wait till I get home because I have links dammit!"

And yes, that site does a good job of explaining what I meant with my comments.

* * * * * * * ATTENTION * * * * * * * *

Please contribute additional comments toward the Topic -- Center Mass: Why Police and Soldiers Shoot to Stop instead of Shooting to Wound.

Please stop the interpersonal jabs and insults. This thread is not about YOU or other ATS members.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: tom.farnhill

This thread isn't about the police.

Are you serious ? Police is in your headline, and mostly this topic involves them, since we do not hear from the criminals side of things.

And we do see videos of military unloading thousands of shots at one guy in many videos, so not about them.

And a gun fight is between a gun and any other weapon, but only a "gun fight" can occur between more than one gun?

What on earth were these comments trying to convey?

I've carried a handgun daily for 33 years and I am a veteran who has been in combat. I agree 100% with the OP. At 25 feet it is difficult to aim and hit a six inch circle at 25 feet in the best of circumstances. This accuracy is what would be required to "wing" someone. Add the other factors in a threatening situation and even attempting to do this is a fools errand. All self-defense training, including police officer's training, teaches to shoot at center mass as many times as necessary to stop the threat. Unless you shoot the heart or the head, the human body does not stop when struck by a bullet. Some people who have been shot may not even aware of having been shot initially. Adrenaline and endorphins surge in a situation like this. Endorphins can instantly prevent any pain from being felt, so unless there is a mechanical limitation imposed by the shooting, a person can sometimes continue to attack you as if nothing happened. They may very well die in a few minutes from the shots they absorbed, but you may be dead as well. I learned in my training and also common sense dictates that you keep shooting until the threat is removed from the equation. This is the reality no matter how others feel about it.

Some senseless comment in this thread stated Michael Brown did not have a chance to stop before getting shot ten times. I beg to differ. Any reasonable person would never assaulted the officer, but given that he did, at that point any reasonable person would have put their hands up and surrendered after the gun went off the first time in the car. Any reasonable person would not have charged back at the officer after running away. Any reasonable person would not have kept charging after the first 5 shots outside the vehicle. Any person who missed all these chances deserves what they got.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the human body is a deadly weapon. Just because Michael Brown did not have a gun, whether (as some suggest) officer Wilson "knew" this or not, does not make him that much less a threat. There are many ways he could have killed officer Wilson, including using officer Wilson's gun. The ADULT 300 pound Michael Brown could have knocked out officer Wilson with one punch. Officer Wilson would have been a fool to even let him try after having been punched at least once by Michael Brown.

Unfortunately, Michael Brown ultimately may have died because of drugs; drugs that caused him to make really stupid choices that day. No sensible person attacks a police officer.

a reply to: Answer

I think people criticise the carte blanche your LEO'd have when it comes to gunning people down, and not having to ever answer for their actions. I mean, can't your LEO's shoot someone in the back, whilst running away UNARMED, if they are identified as a "fleeing felon" ? Says it all really.

a reply to: projectvxn

Why is it that police officers always kill people with guns when they could easily taser them with small chance of harm?

Why is it that police officers always taser people who could easily be taken down by simple grabbing them with their hands? Why is it they instead only use a taser on handicapped, mentally challenged or children?

a reply to: ParasuvO

1st. This is a discussion on why certain tactics are used. Trained civilians also learn to shoot in this manner.

2nd. A gunfight is a fight with a gun. It doesnt matter if the other guy has a gun or not.

a reply to: DumpMaster

This thread is not about any of those things.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: budski

And as I said, you would have to dig a lot deeper into those statistics. You keep citing a "successful" engagement. The FBI doesn't collect distance data for "routine" shootouts. They collect distance data for shootouts in which at least one officer was killed by the assailant. Then that data doesn't take into account how far the distance was when the engagement began, but how far the distance was when the officer was overcome by the attacker.

Actually, the data is recorded gun crime in the U.S.
Whatever.
I'm satisfied that handgun engagements are very short range affairs, that handguns are relatively inaccurate and that because of this, training to aim for the largest part of the target is a no brainer.

That's my position, my opinion, and it's not going to change because some stranger wants to challenge official stats collated over a long period of time without offering anything more concrete than an opinion as to stats he hasn't even seen, but disagrees with, with no counter evidence.

I think you're being very defensive over a non-issue.

It was simply pointed out that the range data is not very well recorded and you're making some assumptions that aren't necessarily supported by good data. Trust me, I've heard the same claims you're making many many times but it doesn't make them completely infallible.

Here's a link that supports Shamrock6's statement:

Link

Sometimes you have to calm down and make sure you're correct before defending yourself.

Not defending anything, just can't be bothered arguing with a person who produces no counter argument and wants to argue for the sake of it.
I'll repeat, if he wants to question FBI stats, he should ring them up, or email them and tell them direct why he thinks they're wrong.