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.

 

Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill


www.nypost.com

City cops are livid over a legislative proposal that could handcuff the brave officers involved in life-and-death confrontations every day -- requiring them to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the arm or leg rather than shoot to kill, The Post has learned.

The "minimum force" bill, which surfaced in the Assembly last week, seeks to amend the state penal codes' "justification" clause that allows an officer the right to kill a thug if he feels his life or someone else's is in imminent danger.
(visit the link for the full news article)



+9 more 
posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
This bill does not need to pass. If a criminal is merely wounded the threat to the officer of being killed is not reduced because the adrenalin of the situation will keep the thug shooting and quite possibly killing the officer.

By the way a "mentally ill" individual with a weapon is just as deadly as one who has not been so diagnosed. Officers are entirely correct to shoot when confronted with an armed threatening person. Neither age, mental capacity nor any other factor should require an officer to allow him/herself to be wounded or killed. Our job is not to diagnose the criminal's particulars but to do what is necessary to protect himself, other officers, and civilians who are at risk.

www.nypost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxtremelySecure
 


Agreed, the police have been given the burden of killing in the line of duty to protect the citizenry from those who would do us grievous harm. Taking a police officer's right to respond with equal force is irresponsible, it will lead to more dead cops and civilians.

I support our police and their right to self defense. Sidebar, does this law pertain to an off duty cop as well? Is a police office confronted in his or her home required to shoot to wound? Where is the line?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
This is a silly bill that COULDN'T be enforced.

The thing is, though, i think there are many circumstances in which officers should be held to a higher standard when taking a shot.

With training, there is no reason a person cannot incapacitate someone without killing them, at least in most instances. Here in Portland, our police are trained to shoot center mass, or kill shot, in any instance in which they fire. I find this to be over the top, and incompetent. There are many instances in which an extremity shot could do the job.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I thought it was proper to aim for the body because the body is larger than the extremities, and thus easier to hit. One could also kill someone by shooting them in the legs. A large amount of blood passes through the femoral artery. If a bullet hits the femoral artery, a person can easily bleed to death.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Really, this is pretty intersting.

There are more ways to take out these ruthless thugs, They should aim for the spinal regions preferrably the lower back. That should put an end to them ever committing any crimes again, alteast on foot. Also will be an economic stimulus for the wheel chair industry.

I despise criminals and especially those who kill innocents that try to stop their acts.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by prionace glauca]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
theirs to many people in america , and probbaly alot of cops who seem to think because someone threatens them with a weapon they have every right to shoot them dead ... which is silly as noone has the right to decide who lives and who dies!

wound them, take them down, but whats the point of killing people anyway...

wouldnt it be better to keep people alive so they can be punished ?? .. ive always though that way . Imo, Death is the easy way out for criminals! (and yes, i mean all criminals... no exception ... if your dead you dont need to think abotu what you have done!)


edit ... aim for the lower back to paralyse them for life ?? ye great, then the state (wherever you live) has to spend more on them while they spend their life in jail . ... good thinking if you like to waste money..

shot in the leg or arm ... then if their still trying to shoot you pop one in the stomach ... least that way if they live they wont be a burdon to society!

[edit on 25-5-2010 by boaby_phet]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by boaby_phet
theirs to many people in america , and probbaly alot of cops who seem to think because someone threatens them with a weapon they have every right to shoot them dead ... which is silly as noone has the right to decide who lives and who dies!


I really wish someone would let the criminals know that...

However in the real world I have seen people with chest shots still fire a few rounds before they go down...wounding doesn't work when a firearm is involved. Its a needless risk to the officer and bystanders.

Secure



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I thought it was proper to aim for the body because the body is larger than the extremities, and thus easier to hit. One could also kill someone by shooting them in the legs. A large amount of blood passes through the femoral artery. If a bullet hits the femoral artery, a person can easily bleed to death.


Any shot *could* be fatal. And at a long enough distance, you have no choice but to shoot center mass, as handguns are not made for distance shooting.

However, at ten yards, there is no reason that someone trained and trusted to carry a gun and PROTECT & serve shouldnt be able to hit a shoulder, a thigh, heck, the flanks.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Any shot *could* be fatal. And at a long enough distance, you have no choice but to shoot center mass, as handguns are not made for distance shooting.

However, at ten yards, there is no reason that someone trained and trusted to carry a gun and PROTECT & serve shouldnt be able to hit a shoulder, a thigh, heck, the flanks.


In a situation where my life our someone else is in danger I am not going to take the chance of the subjects adrenaline allowing him to fire off a couple more shots potentially killing other officers, innocent bystanders, or myself.

Secure



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Good. If the cops are against it, Im for it. If the crooks are for it, Im against it. Works well so far in my life.

No one, including the State should have the right to kill if not needed. If you can get someone down by not killing them, how is that a bad thing?

Oh, I know how... Accountability maybe?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

THE SLAVES ARE RISING



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by boaby_phet
 


You have never been in a situation that required you to make a snappy life or death situation have you?

Until that time comes don’t spout out non-sense you do not understand.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
the simple solution really is this..

GUNS ARE ILLEGAL (in public ... not including licienced sport or hunting or clubs) UNLESS YOUR A POLICE OFFICER ....

then , if they see someone with a gun, they give them half a chance, if they see them go for their weapon they shoot to seriously hurt them

call me crazy, but the logic is astounding... this way the law always has the upper hand and crims will be pretty scared !



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   


I find this to be over the top, and incompetent. There are many instances in which an extremity shot could do the job.

The problem is that many LEOs here in the US receive very little firearms training. In fact, many officers never even fire their issued sidearm outside of their annual agency qualification shoot. They never clean it, never go to a range on their own time, etc. For those officers, hitting the center body mass is alot easier then hitting an arm or a leg.

Besides, in the real world ... it takes more then a shot to the arm or the leg to bring someone down.

@ boaby_phet, I suspect your beloved "bobbies" are even worse. Any police force that limits firearms to a handful of officers is not to be taken seriously. Interesting fact, half of the authorized firearms officers in the London Metropolitan Police are exclusively dedicated to protection of the Royal Family/Royal Palaces, the Prime Minister/his family/10 Downing Street, providing motorcade escorts [ex. the Special Escort Group] for Royalty and the Prime Minister, and diplomatic facilities.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Any shot *could* be fatal. And at a long enough distance, you have no choice but to shoot center mass, as handguns are not made for distance shooting.

However, at ten yards, there is no reason that someone trained and trusted to carry a gun and PROTECT & serve shouldnt be able to hit a shoulder, a thigh, heck, the flanks.


In a situation where my life our someone else is in danger I am not going to take the chance of the subjects adrenaline allowing him to fire off a couple more shots potentially killing other officers, innocent bystanders, or myself.

Secure


Then you really shouldnt be a cop(dont know if you are or not). These are supposed to be highly trained professional who CHOOSE this career.

Now, obviously, each instance is different. Once a criminal has fired the first shot, all bets are off. There are FAR too many instances in which life is not in imminent danger, yet cops take kill shots anyway. I can think of a particular instance right off the top of my head that took place in Tigard Oregon in which an autisitc kid that was holding a knife and not within realistic distance of hurting anyone was fired upon dozens of times by police, and killed.

These are the types of things I am talking about, not when some lunatic is shooting at people.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
This is retarded and has no way of being enforced. For a cop to use a gun he has to be in the position that he can legally use lethal force, even if he shoots a guy in the leg the gun is still lethal force. Even the pit maneuver in car chases is considered lethal force. No matter where you shoot someone there is a chance of death. There are arteries in the legs that if you were shot there would kill you in a few mins.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


say what you want, but im not the one living in a country thats s**t scared someone is going to barge into my house with a gun and shoot me into next week..

infact, ive never ever ever been remotely scared that anyone would even remotely have a gun ... a blade yes, gun never.

you can go on believing that gun control dont work, but i assure you it does...

we see constantly on here the excuse "i need a gun as someone might break into my house with a gun and i need to protect my family" ..

in uk all you need is some sort of blunt object and fists...maybe some pepper spray for a bit of punishment.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I'm all for the reduction of force and the proper use of deadly force by police officers, but this is just stupid.

Far too many police officers will end up loosing their lives if this legislation is send through.

The ammount of criminals who go all out when they are caught, ammounting to Suicide By Cop is astounding.

Like a previous poster said, adrenaline will prevent any sort of delayed reaction by criminals to being wounded slighty in the leg or arm when confronted by police.

~Keeper



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Another nice example of legislators writing bills relating to subjects they have no clue about.

Why not just legislate that all cops take Crouching Tiger classes so they can fly across tree tops and disable criminals with their minds?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I dont take chances with guns and someone that is willing to use them. Knives, Bats, etc. I have almost never pulled my gun out, unless they were about to do lethal damage to someone. I use less lethal weapons all the time when I run into other weapons.

Secure



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join