Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

pfoa.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#91

Post by branchan »

Nadya wrote: post #26
andybak wrote: post #8

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?

If the suspect is making advances towards the officer - even without a visible weapon - yes. The Tueller Drill [0] offers an explanation that few people seem to be aware of. A person 20ft/6m away is still dangerous . The issue is that a large amount of the public consider this a "safe, non-threatening" distance. Many people even think 6ft/2m is a safe distance because it is "outside of arm's reach". At distances of ~…

Here's a video to illustrate this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#92

Post by branchan »

pytrin wrote: post #14

The real problem is that most officers have such minimal training and conditioning in hand-to-hand combat combat (specifically, grappling), and as a result they panic and shoot-to-kill much more often than they should, or use excessive force to control a suspect also resulting in unnecessary deaths. Instead of passing stupid legislation (anyone who's used firearms extensively knows aiming for limbs is not realistic,…

Why would a police officer ever risk his own life by engaging in hand-to-hand combat? If a situation arises that calls for hand-to-hand combat, then the police officer should probably either use a taser or gun right?

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#93

Post by jedmeyers »

Avshalom wrote: post #41
molecule wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away? > he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." > Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them. Which is…

If you're running from a cop, you must be guilty. Right? Which means you're a criminal; which means you're probably a serious threat to others. It's a bit of a toothless ruling because it's about the cop's state of mind at-the-time which is damn hard to disprove, harder when it's a cop's word.

"If you're running from a cop, you must be guilty. Right?" - Guilty or not is for judge and jury to decide. So far the only charge will be "fleeing/evading the police".

"Which means you're a criminal" - you are not a criminal unless convicted.

"which means you're probably a serious threat to others." - 'probably' is the key word. Cops cannot shoot people because they are probably dangerous. "Probable cause to believe" is not the same as "probably".

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#94

Post by branchan »

lectrick wrote: post #33

Someone needs to invent a "shoot to incapacitate" weapon (that is not a Taser). That said... we have the technology, today, to make a gun that automatically targets, in a split second and with high accuracy, the arms and legs (and any other part) of a person. So why don't we just do that?

1. Did you just not describe a taser?

2. Where is this weapon?

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#95

Post by branchan »

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #50

Maybe, I am from a different planet, but sometimes I heard, that police should protect people, but currently some policemen are more caring about protecting themselves -- and they are trained exactly that way. This at least, as an European, goes threw my mind, when I read such descriptions and some news from unarmed people shot into the back.

Why does it not make sense that the police should be trained on how to protect themselves? Also EU gun control laws are stricter than in the US so that is why maybe your police force will be nice and not expect everyone to own a gun.

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#96

Post by PythonicAlpha »

branchan wrote: post #95
PythonicAlpha wrote: post #50

Maybe, I am from a different planet, but sometimes I heard, that police should protect people, but currently some policemen are more caring about protecting themselves -- and they are trained exactly that way. This at least, as an European, goes threw my mind, when I read such descriptions and some news from unarmed people shot into the back.

Why does it not make sense that the police should be trained on how to protect themselves? Also EU gun control laws are stricter than in the US so that is why maybe your police force will be nice and not expect everyone to own a gun.

They should protect themselves, but not protect themselves and forget to protect others. So, they become a part of the problem.

Even, when you expect everybody to have guns, it does not justify shooting others into the back.

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#97

Post by branchan »

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #96
branchan wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it not make sense that the police should be trained on how to protect themselves? Also EU gun control laws are stricter than in the US so that is why maybe your police force will be nice and not expect everyone to own a gun.

They should protect themselves, but not protect themselves and forget to protect others. So, they become a part of the problem. Even, when you expect everybody to have guns, it does not justify shooting others into the back.

I never mentioned anything about shooting others in the back.

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#98

Post by PythonicAlpha »

branchan wrote: post #97
PythonicAlpha wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should protect themselves, but not protect themselves and forget to protect others. So, they become a part of the problem. Even, when you expect everybody to have guns, it does not justify shooting others into the back.

I never mentioned anything about shooting others in the back.

But I did and that is what is happening. And just keeping quiet about it, does not make it better.

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#99

Post by drallison »

drallison wrote: post #31

Perhaps the solution to police killings is to disarm the police. The current default--police have weapons and can use them as they see fit--seems not to be working.

Some of the HN comments have observed that it's not only the police that need to be disarmed, it is the populace as a whole.

Gun violence seems to be so deeply ingrained into the American psyche that the Congress has found it necessary to pass a law preventing the Center for Disease Control from studying the epidemic of violence. See, for example, http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as... and elsewhere. People get so worked up about this issue when they fear their guns will be taken away that they will not support anything which will help mitigate the violence. So much for rational thought.

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#100

Post by x0054 »

jccooper wrote: post #68
x0054 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Automatics commonly work on recoil, sometimes on gas pressure. Without a bullet, recoil is less (see Newton's laws) and so is gas pressure (there's no temporary plug in the barrel). Most semi-auto pistols will not operate with blanks unless modified in a way that would make them incompatible with regular ammo.

Ah, interesting. Never mind then, stupid idea on my part :)
Post reply on HN