why do Police "have" to shoot to KILL every time ??

originally posted by: Gothmog

>> what changed around 2000 ? If you can answer that, please do tell.

** were u asleep when 911 happened

of course govt attitude was hardening for a False Flag op against IRAN before that.

** get Cheney into Times Square and waterboard him, then you will get "the truth".....
and again, no need to kill ...

originally posted by: MasterKaman

originally posted by: Irishhaf

>> how fast an aggressive person can close distance,

two bodycam videos come to mind (1) a crazy guy with knife rushing at british LEO, who disarmed him with Aikido sidestep. required bravery to face that, but he was Trained in Aikido, no killing needed. (2) a bit amusing, another maniac with Machete was rushing left and right surrounded by 20 officers who were also scattering, but maintaining surround with dustbin lids as shields. only took 10 mins before one Officer tripped him over, and they all jumped on him, no killing needed.

all british police cars and many officers have guns nowadays, but it is low profile (except machine guns in airports), and the main difference is ATTITUDE. america is on the edge of martial law, usg has equipped police into an INLAND ARMY with a "them and us" AGAINST citizens, expecting Civil War when the Corrupt Bankers finally collapse your Fake Currency.

You've got to be kidding MK. Dustbin lids don't deflect bullets unless you're Captain America. Get real mate. A person points a gun at me, shoot center main mass to disable them. Haven't got time to shoot their flamin foot or waving arm.

Crikey mate. This ain't a game of marbles.

Bally

edit on 16-8-2015 by bally001 because: spellin was off aim

a reply to: MasterKaman

Was his aikido training from the police or had he been doing it his entire life?

OK, so you shoot at the perps leg, miss, and hit a child behind him, or shoot for center mass, where there is a much larger area and better chances of actually neutralizing the threat? Over here in the US, criminals DO carry guns, and absolutely will shoot if they think that it will give them a chance to get away. To think that the police force here should be unarmed is just plain naive. If a criminal is a threat, they need to be neutralized by any means necessary, before an innocent bystander possibly gets hurt.

originally posted by: MasterKaman

all british police cars and many officers have guns nowadays, but it is low profile (except machine guns in airports), and the main difference is ATTITUDE.

While I'm not averse to the idea (in fact I've long been a proponent of all response vehicles carrying a lockbox with firearms) this simply isn't true. Firearms are still restricted to specialist AFOs (Authorised Firearms Officers).

As to the original post, if the situation exists where you need to shoot someone, ideally you shoot centre-of-mass. It's not even about trying to kill them, it's about trying to ensure that you hit them. I forgot where I found the statistics, but the average US police officer gets maybe one or two training days per year with their firearm. Unless they also shoot on their own time, these are not the kind of people who are going to hit a small moving target while under stress.

Centre of mass is not only safer for the officer (more likely to hit and stop the threat) but safer for everyone standing behind the target. It was only a few years ago that 9 bystanders were accidentally shot by police in New York:

en.wikipedia.org...

There's also a lot of fascinating work done on the psychological conditioning of people who have been shot. More specifically, people tend to stop because they have been shot, not because the wound actually prevents them from continuing. A very sad example of what can happen is the incident involving Trooper Coates, who shot his attacker 5 times in the chest at close range with a .357 Magnum. The attacker still managed to return fire (with a .22 pistol) and kill the officer. In fact, the attacker survived.

www.odmp.org...

The following is the dashcam footage, so you may or may not want to click the link.

www.youtube.com...

Dead men tell no tales.

originally posted by: bally001

>> You've got to be kidding MK. Dustbin lids don't deflect bullets
i didnt say that Ballybob. the criminal had a Machete, and Armed Response WERE on their way.
but in america, the knife man would have 48 bullets in him before any others arrived.

>> A person points a gun at me, Haven't got time to shoot their flamin foot
YES i agree, i said somewhere if the gun is pointed AT you, then no time to care if he dies.

>> Crikey mate. This ain't a game of marbles.
** you speak like an abbo

what are police like in OZ ? shoot first and talk in the Mortuary ?

The better question might be why does it appear that police in the U.S. seem to be (seem) going to the lethal force choice so often and so quickly in the use of force continuum. The logical answer would appear to be that the less lethal alternatives, where no one winds up dead, don't seem to be all that popular on YouTube and the like and that the perception is becoming the reality.

originally posted by: deadlysyn

>> in the US, criminals DO carry guns, and absolutely will shoot.
** only the pros and the crazies will risk a shootout. other crims are not stupid enough to take on a thousand backups with radios, helicopters, and Forensics,

>> To think that the police force here should be unarmed is just plain naive.
** i didnt say that !! they all should carry guns, but need MORE TRAINING about WHEN to use them, and when its ADEQUATE to use Tasers, PepperSpray, etc

as EvilBob says herein
>> the average US police officer gets maybe one or two training days per year with their firearm,
** well that says it all. so would he be happy to go to Casualty Ward and hear the doctor is trainee, only just started ?

a reply to: Gothmog

What changed around 2000 was MEDIA COVERAGE of deadly police shootings. Incidents of police shootings didn't increase. In fact, in many places, shooting death stats went DOWN around this time.

Post-2000 has been the era of the "culture of fear." They're preparing us for the coming police state/martial law. They're teaching us to FEAR police and obey, or face the consequences.

a reply to: MasterKaman

Because I believe the training for everyone with a firearm is that if you draw your weapon with the intent to fire, you aim for center mass.

The thing you see with the hero aiming for arms and legs is strictly Hollywood fiction.

If you judge the situation one that warrants that kind of force, then you are also deadly serious and you better be shooting with the intent to put someone down whether or not he or she survives the experience is secondary. Your safety is paramount at that point, and the easiest way to insure it is to put the other down. Center mass is the best way to be sure you achieve that.

a reply to: EvillerBob

>> 9 bystanders were accidentally shot by police in New York:
** that says it all again. UNTRAINED rookies got in a panic. too many trigger fingers and not enough THOUGHT.

>>people tend to stop because they have been shot,
** YES exactly my Theme herein, no need to kill the average runner.

>>sad example involving Trooper Coates,
** yes a Tragedy for him and his family. he was very polite, but right from the beginning of that vid, i was cringing a bit he was standing TOO close to that driver, and with his right hip gun butt so easily grabable. he was too trusting...

** best policy with potential danger, is to stand BACK a bit and reassess the situation. disengage the EGOS. in Martial Arts as well. let the other person make the first move, then your conscience is clear. but preemptive action is only "smart" when you are right, otherwise you will feel guilty.

a reply to: MasterKaman

It is impossible to hit a leg or foot in the heat of the moment with the adrenaline rushing through you.

That is the worst training possible.

I agree, I hate how the Leo's are acting.

But what suggest, will get those trying to do the right thing killed.

They aim center body mass, because it is the biggest easiest to hit target.

Even then, they miss a lot.

Sure they should shoot much less often and tazer more often, but trying to hit moving legs with adrenaline and fear......


You don't know much about shooting weapons do you?

That is the same as saying a hunter should just head shot a running deer.

It is all but impossible.

You have seen too many movies.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

>> why does it appear that police in the U.S. seem to be going to the lethal force choice so often

** again LACK OF TRAINING. the recent example of an Officer suddenly shooting a driver in the head because he tried to pull away ! he should not even have been thinking /ready to kill anyone for that Minor Offence, just call in the radio to block the guy furthur up the road. but there is an ATTITUDE that any Minor Disobedience warrants assault, throw to the ground, Taser, handcuff, Taser again, and kill him sometime in the next 24 hours "because he tried to object". its become endemic to the american "way"..

a reply to: johnwick

Nonsense. Police in other countries seem to do this all the time. There are also plenty of less-lethal or non-lethal alternatives, like bean bags, rubber ammo, and nunchucks. I'm not kidding about the nunchucks.

originally posted by: MasterKaman

originally posted by: Reallyfolks


>> Basics of shooting, always aim center mass.

Indicative of PANIC lack of thought, LACK of skill, and LACK of training. in a war ok, on the streets mostly not ok.

Um no!!

You ever been deer hunting?

Ever sneak up on one you didn't see, and it bolts?

There is no head shots, there is only lead center mass and squeeze.

I am very vocal about police brutality, but what you claim is just not realistic.

You are demanding the impossible.

Hitting a leg on a moving target is Hollywood fiction.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: MasterKaman

I suggest you read up on how fast an aggressive person can close distance, and also read up on what a bullet can do when it hits concrete at an angle... (hint it's not stop on a dime)

He ignores the fact if I hit you in the inner thigh I can damage the femoral artery, and bleed you out in a minute, or the fact it is not that easy.

He obviously has little training or experience with fire arms, especially pistols.

What he is demanding is not possible.

I am the first to point out Leo's when they are #ing it up. But what he suggests.... Is not bounded in reality.

The entire OP is ignorant aside from LE should probably not be shooting as often as they are.

The rest is opinion, fantasy, or both.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The entire OP is ignorant aside from LE should probably not be shooting as often as they are.

The rest is opinion, fantasy, or both.

I think I'd like to see you guys shooting the knives, guns, bottles and what not out of their hands instead.

And bank shots. You know, bounce a few off the pavement so they hit the pistol butt from below, so's you don't hurt they little fingers when you disarm them.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The entire OP is ignorant aside from LE should probably not be shooting as often as they are.

The rest is opinion, fantasy, or both.

I think I'd like to see you guys shooting the knives, guns, bottles and what not out of their hands instead.

And bank shots. You know, bounce a few off the pavement so they hit the pistol butt from below, so's you don't hurt they little fingers when you disarm them.

Don't forget curving shots. And then top it all off with a little gunspinning.