It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Aiming for center mass in a law enforcement situation makes sense. It is the biggest target.
Going for a leg shot means you are aiming at a smaller target and may miss and hit an innocent bystander.
I have some problems with police emptying magazines as quickly as they seem to be trained to do.
Most people will stop once they've been popped a good one.
It is a different situation if the other person is armed with a firearm. Shooting to kill is justified in that situation.
It is not justified when dealing with a person with a knife or bludgeon.
The Hollywood version of bullet wounds instantly stopping someone are, for the most part, inaccurate.
A square head shot will stop someone then and there, but a "wound shot" very often will not.
I know a guy that fought in Vietnam. He took three rounds. One through a lung. One through the shoulder that missed bone, and one through the teeth that exited the side of his neck. He kept on fighting.




posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Thank you por pointing out just how chaotic combat can be. One other thing more people need to understand is that once the guns come out it is combat, not target shooting, not a controlled situation. IT IS COMBAT. Whether on the ground in a war zone or on the streets of America. Combat means you shot to stop the other person from trying to kill you or others.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

One of the most revered criminals of the 20th century, Clyde Barrow, was still firing his gun after having been hit by more than 20 rounds, both pistol and long gun. Sometimes 10 rounds just don't do the job.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

The gun laws state that anytime a firearm is used in defense than it is considered deadly force. Firearms are not designed to just wound, they are designed to kill. Anytime you draw your weapon in self-defense or defense of others you had better be prepared to deal the death of another caused by your hand.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: gamesmaster63

You missed the point.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

You're kind of arguing both sides here. You say most people will stop after getting popped a good one" and then tell a story about a person who stayed in the fight after being popped three "good ones."

Also, a knife or blunt object can absolutely be justified reasons for shooting somebody. If you have an edged weapon and are coming at me, I'm not going to OC spray you, nor am I going to use an ASP to try to knock the knife out of your hand. Same goes for a blunt instrument. I'm not going to try and go all Jason Bourne on you, nor am I obligated to.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23




It is not justified when dealing with a person with a knife or bludgeon.


This is absolutely not true and is yet another example of ignorance that is rampant out there when it comes to deadly force encounters.

Knives are absolutely dangerous and it is something you want kept away from you. If someone drew a knife on me I would be justified in using my firearm to stop him from attacking me. A knife is a deadly weapon and it is employed as such.

A bludgeon will kill someone, period. I am not going to go hand to hand with someone who has a bat, nor am I going to employ something that I need to close the distance with. I'm gonna shoot him.
edit on pSun, 30 Nov 2014 10:35:06 -0600201430America/Chicago2014-11-30T10:35:06-06:0030vx11 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
it's strange. the sense of feeling secure in ones own skin is by and largely an effect of harnessing a weapon?...something to help one from soiling self in a dangerous predicament. I suppose trapping furs can justify a dangerous predicament?

Monkeys in a cage fling poop at people in a zoo, if you stand next to the guy the monkeys are aiming at, you're likely to get hit...stand there and encourage the guy as he teases the monkeys.

monkeys and boundaries


SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND BEHAVIOR

The social organization of black spider monkeys is closely related to their ecological niche as large-bodied frugivores. In addition to ranging over large areas to find the amount of fruit necessary to meet their feeding requirements, black spider monkeys exhibit another behavior that helps them cope with seasonally restricted fruit. Like chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), spider monkeys exhibit a fission-fusion social system; there is a large community of individuals that regularly associate with one another but individuals within the larger community spend much of their time traveling in smaller, temporary sub-groups led by dominant adult females (Mittermeier & van Roosmalen 1981; van Roosmalen 1985). Spider monkeys break up into small foraging groups that travel together and feed throughout the day within a core area of the larger group's home range (Simmen & Sabatier 1996). The subgroups or parties that are formed by individuals within the troop are temporary and can change in composition frequently throughout the day, but average three individuals, most commonly an adult male, and adult female, and her dependent offspring (van Roosmalen 1985; Norconk & Kinzey 1994). The composition of the subgroup can remain stable for up to a few weeks and then changes as group members shift to other subgroups or out of the larger social group (van Roosmalen 1985). The larger social group is usually between 15 and 20 animals and is defined as a group of animals that interact peacefully or amicably (van Roosmalen 1985). When two different troops of spider monkeys come together, the males in each troop display agonistic and territorial behavior such as calling and barking. These interactions happen with much distance between the two groups and do not involve physical contact, indicating that groups respect distinct territory boundaries (van Roosmalen 1985). Members of a community might not ever be observed together at the same place, but their mutual tolerance of each other when they come into contact indicates they are part of the larger troop (van Roosmalen 1985).


If we can't learn from monkeys, how can we evolve from them?



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

What does this have to do with what is being discussed in the OP?



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: loveguy

What does this have to do with what is being discussed in the OP?


lost my original reply...better that way.

I'm on the wrong chapter anyway, seems we're saying it's kosher to keep oppressing people?



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: loveguy

What does this have to do with what is being discussed in the OP?


lost my original reply...better that way.

I'm on the wrong chapter anyway, seems we're saying it's kosher to keep oppressing people?


Dude, what are you talking about?

This is a tactical discussion.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

I don't see how anything you said pertains to why people are trained to shoot a certain way. Like literally nothing in your posts pertains to it.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

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.
edit on 30-11-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
A couple of things come to mind.
First off, various studies have repeatedly shown that a person who has been shot does not go down until they actually realise that they've been shot (obviously barring immediately fatal shots). It sounds strange, but it's true.

According to the FBI, the average successful handgun engagement is around 11 feet.
Think about that.
That's about 3 strides (a stride being longer than a normal step).



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

it is no use. it seems that metafors and deep thinking is above their gov. paygrades. who can really say how far up to the top the problem can be traced.

i would bet money that the thought that picking up a weapon can lead to shooting people is out of their reach.
edit on 30-11-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: loveguy

it is no use. it seems that metafors and deep thinking is above their gov. paygrades. who can really say how far up to the top the problem can be traced.


The spiritual question is a completely different one in my view.

You may fondly imagine that there's a conspiracy at work here, but I'm afraid it's just a question of training and bio-mechanics.
The average person who joins the military is likely to be completely unconcerned about any kind of "spiritual" ramifications, and completely focused on passing basic training, of which weapons training is a large part.
There is no questioning, because it is not part of the culture to try and second guess instructors.
Institutional learning, gained over hundreds of years is what works, and that means training, training and more training when it comes to every aspect of combat.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: budski

You would have to really dig into the FBI stats to come up with an actual average distance for a gunfight. While the stats are great, they don't separate gunfights from shootings (where an officer is ambushed by an assailant), along with a number of other factors. Example: a trooper returning home after shift was shot by an assailant hiding across the street. The trooper was severly wounded, and the assailant crossed the street and executed him from contact range. That trooper's fatality was put under the contact range category, even though the initial assault took place at something like 30 yards away.

At contact distances, even the most untrained shooters are likely to aim for the head, and hit it more often than not. As distance increases, the odds shift towards the officer's favor as the factors that were previously in the assailant's favor become nullified or shift to the officer's favor.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: budski

You would have to really dig into the FBI stats to come up with an actual average distance for a gunfight. While the stats are great, they don't separate gunfights from shootings (where an officer is ambushed by an assailant), along with a number of other factors. Example: a trooper returning home after shift was shot by an assailant hiding across the street. The trooper was severly wounded, and the assailant crossed the street and executed him from contact range. That trooper's fatality was put under the contact range category, even though the initial assault took place at something like 30 yards away.

At contact distances, even the most untrained shooters are likely to aim for the head, and hit it more often than not. As distance increases, the odds shift towards the officer's favor as the factors that were previously in the assailant's favor become nullified or shift to the officer's favor.


As I said, the FBI, state the average successful handgun engagement is around 11 feet.
Average.
Across thousands of incidents studied and collated over decades.
Meaning isolated incidents will not greatly skew an average one way or another.
You want to argue about their methods, ring them up and argue with them.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join