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

a reply to: Phage
Of course you can kill them. Thats obvious and not worth even mentioning. You can kill someone by shooting them in the toe. But thankyou for backing up my point that it has a greater chance of neutralising them in the form of statistics. Much appreciated.

a reply to: rossacus
Tell me, what makes you think that the majority of gunshot wounds inflicted by police are to the heart?

a reply to: rossacus

Please don't let this turn into an issue of individual weight as I can see that coming. But the average body the chest / shoulder area is broader and extends both horizontally and vertically further than the stomach. It's a larger area thus a larger target. In a time where a shooting occurs with emotions/ adrenaline etc going it provides a larger target area to hit making it easier. Granted many stomachs stick out more than a chest but it's not about weight, it's simply. About a larger vertical/horizontal area.

Now it can seem there's a better way but again with all the emotions /adrenalin running you want to have the easiest target to hit. It happens so many vital organs are in this area. Also aiming at smaller areas in that situation would lead to more misses, you then have a stray bullet flying. Safety issue

The key will never be to train to shoot the leg or whatever. It's not practical. They key would be to minimize the times the gun is pulled to begin with. In this regard it not only involves training police but common sense when you encounter them. When I get pulled over I roll down the window , music off, light on if dark and palms on the steering wheel with fingers extended. Under no circumstances does this mean I will submit to illegal searches, stand for being illegally detained, or take a smart mouth without giving it back. But it does establish I'm not a physical threat so keep your gun in your holster cowboy.

a reply to: Phage
Does not police training recommend aiming for the upper part of the mass? I said heart and lungs just to let you know. I am a victim of the information posted on this forum in terms of guidelines and the videos posted . I have not seen a clip (seen a few) where a single shot has been fired and it has not hit the upper part of the persons "mass". Multiple shot /panic type shooting results in multiple entry wounds all around the body. Although these types of situations are close combat, with the person in question with no visible gun.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Thanks for the response. It's a shame I'm portraying myself as the type to play the "weight card"...

I suppose it depends on whether they are facing you or sideways..

a reply to: rossacus

Does not police training recommend aiming for the upper part of the mass?

I don't think any particular part of the mass is specified. The torso is the larger part of the body and thus, the torso is the target. Aiming for the center of the torso increases the likelihood of a hit.

said heart and lungs just to let you know.

Yes. I know. Is a lung shot always fatal?

Although these types of situations are close combat, with the person in question with no visible gun.

As has been pointed out, the discussion is not about whether or not the use of deadly force is suggested in any particular situation. It is about "shooting him in the leg."

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Phage
Does not police training recommend aiming for the upper part of the mass? I said heart and lungs just to let you know. I am a victim of the information posted on this forum in terms of guidelines and the videos posted . I have not seen a clip (seen a few) where a single shot has been fired and it has not hit the upper part of the persons "mass". Multiple shot /panic type shooting results in multiple entry wounds all around the body. Although these types of situations are close combat, with the person in question with no visible gun.

You seem to be confused about the thread. It asked why police don't shoot arms and legs. Simple answer easy to miss and doesn't stop people from shooting you. You seem to think the debate is about when lethal force should be used. The answer is simple really any time the life of the officer or others are in danger. I don't care if it's a gun or a sharp stick if it is being used to threaten someone.

originally posted by: MasterKaman
a reply to: WeRpeons

The first piece of sensible thoughts in this thread full of macho trainee killers ! Please ALL understand there are TWO psychological Stages an officer should (and usually does) go thru (1) the THREAT and minor use of weapons, such as shots around feet. Then if that doesn't work, or the crim draws his own gun, only THEN (2) should an officer fire in a more life endangering way.

There are absolutely no realistic conditions under which an officer should fire their weapon at the ground around the aggressor's feet. That idea is about as far from sensible as any post in this thread. There have even been some very sensible posts explaining why.

a reply to: Phage
My bad. I thought the point of the thread was why don't the police use less deadly measures than kill shots, like shooting in the legs, tasers, beanbags, etc. I don't know when the thread regressed to just leg shots. I didn't follow the the path of the thread and was just responding to the OP.

And I know lung shots aren't always fatal. I always wonder why you take that form of debate. We both know the answer, unless you feel I'm inferior in some way of course. It doesn't stimulate the debate.

Well in the UK now most Armed officers are trained in and use Tasers and will use them

In general, bullets only start flying when there is a clear and imminent threat to life.

So if a guy is standing with a knife waving it about with guns trained on him but he is not about to kill anyone and is contained a taser is a good viable option.

If however he has a gun and is waving it about with threat then the police have a duty to protect the public and themselves if life is in danger. In this instance a shot to the chest is what is called for, I am told by my buddy who is a AFO that they are always trained to aim for the chest because they have the highest chance of hitting the chest and incapacitating the criminal. Its not so easy to shoot a guy on in the hand or arm to ensure he will drop his gun and if you miss then you are either going to get shot yourself or he is going to get a round in the somewhere else, chest or head.

In the UK police are trained to take head shots when they believe they are dealing with a suicide bomber.

But quite frankly i think the cries for "why did they just not shoot the shot gun totting bank robber in the leg" are stupid.

a reply to: rossacus

I didn't follow the the path of the thread and was just responding to the OP.

Could have fooled me.


The OP:

not talking about the 10% citizens who are trainee Jason Bournes, that need instant vaporising. but 90% average criminals do NOT need to be shot in the chest or back (which frequently kills). a running (or advancing) crook would only need a couple of shots round his feet or into his leg to stop him. and why not use Tasers much more frequently ? the answer is LACK of police training, always aiming for the chest is not necessary. they should calm down and try stepping BACK for a bit of thought and aiming.

And I know lung shots aren't always fatal. I always wonder why you take that form of debate.

You mean asking questions? You might start here:
en.wikipedia.org...

As to why a question about the lungs? You brought it up in your defense.

a reply to: dragonridr

I would say the thread is about why do the police shoot in the chest. I don't know how the thread evolved and what the OP'S replies said but legs was 1 alternative. He also mentioned why not use tasers. I am responding to the OP. ...not what the thread had become.

a reply to: Phage

The OP is about not being shot jn the chest or back, not that they should be shot in the leg. He posted an alternative method like tasers also, but judging by the responses we are ignoring that. The thread may have become about shooting in the leg by emotional responses but that is not what has been written in the OP. I suggest you read it again before commenting again. No apologies needed.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Thanks for the response. It's a shame I'm portraying myself as the type to play the "weight card"...

I suppose it depends on whether they are facing you or sideways..

Buddy I don't weigh a lot, on a windy day I can catch a ride on the wind. If I stand sideways I don't care how good a shot someone is, chances are they aren't seeing me

a reply to: rossacus

shot a guy with a taser the gun could still go off and fly right into a kids eye too much of a risk.

Basically if someone has a gun and is a clear threat to life then he needs a bullet in the chest.

I would not have thought this would have been something anyone would really think needed debated.

a reply to: rossacus

The OP actually does both. It's literally right there. "An advancing person would only need a few shots near his feet or one in his leg to stop him" or some such tripe.

You're welcome.

a reply to: Phage
That's what I was referring to. Your desire to belittle. You ask stupid questions that ditract from the original point.just let the thread flow, no need for your self gratification.

a reply to: rossacus

Again, from the OP:

crook would only need a couple of shots round his feet or into his leg to stop him.

a reply to: rossacus

You ask stupid questions that ditract from the original point.

No. I ask pointed questions which challenge your position.
That is not belittlement. But I understand that it can make you uncomfortable.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I'm not debating that. Was just responding to what the thread had supposedly become. I agree with you.