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

originally posted by: MasterKaman
In fact they won't even rough handle if you are cooperative.

Hey, imagine that... police in the US are the exact same way.

Police in the UK don't take kindly to people resisting arrest or screaming in their face either, I suspect.

Let's use our heads for a second... there are a lot of arrests that happen every single day in the US. Around 33,000 according to the FBI. Do you think that the uneventful ones end up on YouTube?

You see some videos on YouTube of the eventful arrests with people shouting/resisting and the police getting rough and that paints the picture for how all the American police officers behave? Come on, man... logic. Use it.

a reply to: CantStandIt

You chaps keep missing the Theme here. If anyone is making a certain "deadly attack" on you, then YES aim to not care if he dies. But many vids show police killing (say) mentally disturbed unarmed people who need doctors, not instant death.

originally posted by: MasterKaman
a reply to: CantStandIt

You chaps keep missing the Theme here. If anyone is making a certain "deadly attack" on you, then YES aim to not care if he dies. But many vids show police killing (say) mentally disturbed unarmed people who need doctors, not instant death.

We've addressed that. You are the one missing the point.

When a sidearm is used, it should be used when death is justified... it should not be used with the intent to scare or wound someone.

Most people replying in this thread have said "cops shouldn't shoot people who don't need to be shot."

You influenced the narrative when you started talking about shooting people in the leg and other such nonsense.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MasterKaman
a reply to: CantStandIt

You chaps keep missing the Theme here. If anyone is making a certain "deadly attack" on you, then YES aim to not care if he dies. But many vids show police killing (say) mentally disturbed unarmed people who need doctors, not instant death.

We've addressed that. You are the one missing the point.

When a sidearm is used, it should be used when death is justified... it should not be used with the intent to scare or wound someone.

Most people replying in this thread have said "cops shouldn't shoot people who don't need to be shot."

You influenced the narrative when you started talking about shooting people in the leg and other such nonsense.

Seems to be the point being missed. Want to discuss times to pull the weapon fine. Pull it, you shoot center mass and to kill. Unless your the cop in Texas who took out the drawing contest would be shooters with two head shots. That guy can shoot where ever he wants. Otherwise training says center mass.

a reply to: Answer

Quite right Mr.answer u must be one of the better Leo. We are all commenting MOSTLY on the big issues that hit the News and uTube, and millions of other events go completely unreported. I fully respect police in general and have often said "even civilised Oxford would soon be under looting and gang fights if the police suddenly disappeared". But I still think this "shoot to kill" attitude is ok for wars, but on the streets should be more controlled by stepping BACK more often, disengaging Egos and aiming more carefully.

originally posted by: MasterKaman
a reply to: Answer

Quite right Mr.answer u must be one of the better Leo. We are all commenting MOSTLY on the big issues that hit the News and uTube, and millions of other events go completely unreported. I fully respect police in general and have often said "even civilised Oxford would soon be under looting and gang fights if the police suddenly disappeared". But I still think this "shoot to kill" attitude is ok for wars, but on the streets should be more controlled by stepping BACK more often, disengaging Egos and aiming more carefully.

Disengaging egos and stepping back are two areas to discuss. There is no aiming more carefully though. You get to the point of shooting it is center mass and to kill. The problem is not shooting to kill, if it goes to that that's what you do. The problem is how to avoid getting there, and I would agree that there are ways to improve/decrease getting to that point

a reply to: MasterKaman

center mass is easier to hit...neutralize the threat. training.

seeing the perp in court comes second, if at all.

dead men tell no tales.

a reply to: MasterKaman

Those of you advocating for shooting to wound need to go spend some time on a shooting range. Shooting is difficult. Hitting a motionless target with a handgun is challenging enough. Hitting a human charging you with only moments to spare is extremely difficult.

Why can't they shoot them in the leg? Why can't drivers just be more careful and not get in accidents? Because humans aren't perfect, that's why.

originally posted by: hammanderr
a reply to: MasterKaman

Those of you advocating for shooting to wound need to go spend some time on a shooting range. Shooting is difficult. Hitting a motionless target with a handgun is challenging enough. Hitting a human charging you with only moments to spare is extremely difficult.

Why can't they shoot them in the leg? Why can't drivers just be more careful and not get in accidents? Because humans aren't perfect, that's why.

I disagree with the urgency to pounce. Split-second decisions are obscured by a blurry tunnel vision kind of perspective...especially when one forgets the whole point in apprehending anyone is to have them answer for their alleged crimes, in a court of law.

originally posted by: hammanderr
a reply to: MasterKaman

Those of you advocating for shooting to wound need to go spend some time on a shooting range. Shooting is difficult. Hitting a motionless target with a handgun is challenging enough. Hitting a human charging you with only moments to spare is extremely difficult.

Why can't they shoot them in the leg? Why can't drivers just be more careful and not get in accidents? Because humans aren't perfect, that's why.

Beyond that, a situation that escalates with tension, adrenaline, emotions etc flowing and a moving target. Even if someone takes that moment to shoot for the leg chances are a miss. Then what, you now have a stray bullet. Where does that bullet hit. Aiming center mass isn't just easier in that situation, it is also a safety measure for others who may he around. But I do agree that the best way is to look at ways to avoid pulling the weapon. If it's pulled, game over

a reply to: Reallyfolks

If a minor criminal has started to run off, you gonna kill him straight away ? I saw vid of mother had asked police to and help her with mentally ill son. Inside 5 minutes at her front door the kid was shot dead. Well done copper you should get Distinguihed Service Medal...

a reply to: Reallyfolks

If a minor criminal has started to run off, you gonna kill him straight away ? I saw vid of mother had asked police to and help her with mentally ill son. Inside 5 minutes at her front door the kid was shot dead. Well done copper you should get Distinguihed Service Medal...

a reply to: hammanderr

Yes life decisions are difficult in all directions, but trained officers are supposed to demonstrate examples of good behaviour. They get salary and opportunity to learn better methods of restraint, not strut around like unaccountable Cowboys.

At this point we seem to be discussing two separate issues, and some posters seem to be trying to blur the two into one.

1) the unnecessary and unjustifiable shootings by law enforcement

2) why can't law enforcement "shoot to scare" or "shoot to wound."

They are two completely separate issues. Trying to use instances of the first to support the idea of the second is a fail right out of the gate.

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: hammanderr

I disagree with the urgency to pounce. ,,, especially when one forgets the whole point in apprehending anyone is to have them answer for their alleged crimes, in a court of law.

** Yes the police job is to drag them before a court to decide, not kill them on the spot !

edit on 16/8/15 by MasterKaman because: (no reason given)

a reply to: MasterKaman

Shoot lower? In the leg perhaps?

What's the big artery in the leg called, again? Ah, yes, the femoral... Nick that? That shoot to wound just became a bleed out in a couple of minutes.

originally posted by: MasterKaman
a reply to: Reallyfolks

If a minor criminal has started to run off, you gonna kill him straight away ? I saw vid of mother had asked police to and help her with mentally ill son. Inside 5 minutes at her front door the kid was shot dead. Well done copper you should get Distinguihed Service Medal...

That comes back to avoiding a time to pull and shoot, but the op is why they always shoot to kill. Answer is training for a number of reasons

I think the OP'S perspective is so simply because he lives in the UK. He is not taking into account that is legal for most citizens to carry a gun. If he stated that all guns should be banned so police would not need to fatally shoot perps than his point would be more valid.

Being from the UK I understand the point, but has little relevance in a society that supports guns as a culture. In the UK the police force are effective and have to use their "brains" more simply because the easy option is not available for most officers.

One point I have never understood, maybe like the OP, why is the mass regarded as the chest area( heart and lungs), basically the vital organs. It seems like it more to do with killing the person rather than neutralising them. The stomach area is of larger mass and if the study that was posted earlier is correct, bejng shot is enough detterant to not shoot back (not always the case of course).

Yes the OP'S view is rather fanciful but it does seem an u necessary desire to kill rather than neutralise.

a reply to: rossacus

Yes the OP'S view is rather fanciful but it does seem an u necessary desire to kill rather than neutralise.

No. Not a desire to kill. It is the use of a weapon of deadly force.

You really think a gut shot is not deadly?

Gunshot wounds to the head are the most lethal of all firearm injuries.3 It is estimated they have a fatality rate greater than 90%. Those to the myocardium have fatality rates reaching 80%. Intra-abdominal injuries from gunshot wounds tend to involve the small bowel (50%), colon (40%), liver (30%) and abdominal vascular structures (25%).4

www.emsworld.com...

You wound them no matter how they get disability for life . I know people that broke their foot and are getting money every month because they know the system.

You shoot to kill and the family fights over the kids because they are suddenly valuable with social Security coming in every month. Seen it many times

It's a no win but like Baltimore has learned self policing works. 40 -50 shot each week not by cops but by people just self policing at it's finest.