61–70 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly do you means by "there is no threat"?
IF someone is running by foot, he is not a threat to anyone, unless he is swinging a weapon of somekind. Shooting someone while fleeing is terrible in so many levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US police have 2nd Amendment rights like anyone else, so that seems unlikely.
Does it really work that way? Police men should not be able to use any kind of weapon on the job other than the ones they've been assigned.
The New York Post has just reported that Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson [D.-Bedford Stuyvesant] and Darryl Towns [D.-East New York] have introduced a "minimum force" bill that would require officers to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg" and to use firearms "with the intent to stop, rather than kill." This is what happens when people think TV and movies are an accurate representation of reality. Beyon…
Agreed. Been shooting in the military since 2006, and I just left the active duty Army after 5+ years. Was an Infantry Platoon leader...been to a bunch of shooting courses...This idea that you can "shoot to wound" is just not based in reality. Like, at all. Shoot someone in the leg, huh. Better not hit that femoral! They'll bleed out in ~2, maybe 3 minutes, depending. Better practice your tourniquet. Watch your backg…
Brit here. Is the 'stop or I'll shoot' thing a myth or does it actually happen in the US? i.e. do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?
Before 1985, using force, including lethal force, to stop a "fleeing felon" was accepted from common law--for any party, not just police. Lethal force would not be acceptable for minor or non-violent crimes. Doubtless the trope comes from practices pre-1985. I'd imagine the same provision of common law applied in the UK at one point, but I couldn't say when or how it stopped. Perhaps quite a long time ago.
Police and civilians also have legal justification for use of lethal force in defence of one's self or others from imminent use of deadly force (and usually other serious violent crimes like kidnapping or rape). Exactly how that line is drawn varies slightly; some states have a strong "duty to retreat" whenever possible, but most don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. Been shooting in the military since 2006, and I just left the active duty Army after 5+ years. Was an Infantry Platoon leader...been to a bunch of shooting courses...This idea that you can "shoot to wound" is just not based in reality. Like, at all. Shoot someone in the leg, huh. Better not hit that femoral! They'll bleed out in ~2, maybe 3 minutes, depending. Better practice your tourniquet. Watch your backg…
Then you'll also know that part of the design of the NATO 5.56mm was to wound and not specifically kill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about loading the first round with blanks. Some times just the sound of the shot is enough to startle and stop a suspect. Shooting in the air would be an option too, but it could be a little problematic, as what goes up, must come down. The blank option would also give an officer a split second to maybe rethink his actions. And if the officer really needs to use lethal force, it's easy to quickly squeeze off 2 ro…
No. From experience, the only other rounds that would go into my magazine were tracer rounds. Additionally, the mechanics of how these weapons work make that not possible. Edit: Beyond the above, from a tactical perspective...just think through the game theory on that and you'll see why that would be unwise.
I think the issue being raised here is rifles that make use of the pressurised gas produced by the bullet leaving the rifle... as there is nothing to retain the pressure it will not load the next.. Which is why they have 'Blank Firing Adapters' to create the pressure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank-firing_adaptor
The New York Post has just reported that Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson [D.-Bedford Stuyvesant] and Darryl Towns [D.-East New York] have introduced a "minimum force" bill that would require officers to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg" and to use firearms "with the intent to stop, rather than kill." This is what happens when people think TV and movies are an accurate representation of reality. Beyon…
Agreed. Been shooting in the military since 2006, and I just left the active duty Army after 5+ years. Was an Infantry Platoon leader...been to a bunch of shooting courses...This idea that you can "shoot to wound" is just not based in reality. Like, at all. Shoot someone in the leg, huh. Better not hit that femoral! They'll bleed out in ~2, maybe 3 minutes, depending. Better practice your tourniquet. Watch your backg…
That is what scares me along with the use of SWAT. I would love to have stats on drawn weapons per encounter through the year (yeah, pipe dream). I'm not sure its more frequent or we just have a ton more video. My brother had a gun drawn on him by a young highway patrol officer while he was stranded by the side of the road putting a new belt in his car. His first knowledge of the officer was hearing the clicking of the gun. He and the person with him (standing on the engine push down on the alternator with a 2x4 so they could slip the belt on) were not amused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. From experience, the only other rounds that would go into my magazine were tracer rounds. Additionally, the mechanics of how these weapons work make that not possible. Edit: Beyond the above, from a tactical perspective...just think through the game theory on that and you'll see why that would be unwise.
Hmm, I am no expert in guns. Is it not possible to use blanks in a standard automatic pistol? I have seen people use blanks in revolvers. Is it because a blank cartridge would be missing the bullet part, so it would be shorter? Just curious. I suppose that logically speaking, if I know that most cops have a blank loaded as their first shot, logically, I shouldn't be startled by the first shot. But that said, an encou…
I wonder how the London police manage to keep order without carrying guns ?
Sounds like a strawman. Who advocates shooting people just to wound them? Why not shoot to disable a threat?
People who don't like the idea of police shooting someone not just a few times but a few dozen or hundreds of times. When the police seem to abuse their power by shooting many, many more times than is necessary it's natural for people to ask what can be done to restore a bit of balance between the police and the public. http://ktla.com/2015/05/23/cleveland-officer-michael-brelo-f...
However, there would seem to be something worth considering in a "shoot to disable" policy, as opposed to a "shoot to kill" policy.