Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Police shooting people

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Dr_Teeth
    Registered Users Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭Dr_Teeth


    Death Sentence wrote: »
    The police forces usually ARE actually trained to disarm first, then maim, then kill, as with most military forces. So your point totally negates police and army training whereby you are trained to, in order 1. if necessary, shoot to disarm, 2. shoot to maim, and 3. shoot to kill does it ? You FAIL !!!

    You're talking nonsense there I'm afraid. No-one, in any service, anywhere, is trained to "shoot to disarm" or "shoot to maim". If you're shooting at someone it's because they need to be incapacitated instantly. Officers are trained to shoot at the chest (biggest target) until the criminal is on the ground.


  • Options
    #63
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Nope, he's wrong. Both are past tense, was is singular. If there were more than one, he's have been fine.

    Subjunctive? New to me too!

    Then go look it up, like I did. The obvious analogy is the phrase "If I were you, but I am not, I would do this". This is present tense, contrary to the indicative. (Indicative is when something is the case, and subjunctive is when something is not the case)
    The police forces usually ARE actually trained to disarm first, then maim, then kill, as with most military forces. So your point totally negates police and army training whereby you are trained to, in order 1. if necessary, shoot to disarm, 2. shoot to maim, and 3. shoot to kill does it ? You FAIL !!!

    Trained to disarm, then maim, then kill? Yeah, right. Find me a common constable with that training. As the Germans say, "Quatsch."

    NTM


  • Options
    #64
    ojewriej
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,468 ✭✭✭ojewriej


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    The problem with the Lusk situation is that our police intelligence knew that the robbery was going down. They could have stopped it before it happened and needlessly put people in the PO through the trauma of it all.

    You seem to forget that the robbers put people in PO through the trauma, not the guards.


  • Options
    #65
    Spitfire666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,323 ✭✭✭Spitfire666


    Dr_Teeth wrote: »
    You're talking nonsense there I'm afraid. No-one, in any service, anywhere, is trained to "shoot to disarm" or "shoot to maim". If you're shooting at someone it's because they need to be incapacitated instantly. Officers are trained to shoot at the chest (biggest target) until the criminal is on the ground.

    +1


  • Options
    #66
    Beelzebub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 643 ✭✭✭Beelzebub


    danger mouse wrote: »
    OK I'm just back from the USA. this has been bugging me abit. OK was watching the news. They where reporting about this young lad that got shot by the cops during the week. now i cant see what the problem with this was. the little f**ker had a gun pointed at the cops and got blown away (fair enough i say) but the result of this was the three cops got taken off the job and there is a huge out cry about this.. IMO he got what he deserved and this kind of no nonsense approach should be brought in over here as far as I'm concerned. it reminded me of the two toe rags that where trying to rob that post office in lusk and got put down by the cops for their troubles. what do people think? should we be more on the ball and have more cases where these little knackers get the bullet first ask questions later. better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6 as a resent movie put it so well.


    Link please.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    coyote6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 303 ✭✭coyote6


    Death Sentence wrote: »
    The police forces usually ARE actually trained to disarm first, then maim, then kill, as with most military forces. So your point totally negates police and army training whereby you are trained to, in order 1. if necessary, shoot to disarm, 2. shoot to maim, and 3. shoot to kill does it ? You FAIL !!! QUOTE]

    Which police department trains like this? What military trains this way? This is baloney. If you're referring to the Force Continuum you've misinterpreted it. Police forces are never trained to disarm first. They are trained to stop the threat and protect innocent life and their own life.

    Next you'll be wondering if we can bend our shots or dodge them like in the Matrix. Silliness really.


  • Options
    #68
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,964 ✭✭✭✭Kintarō Hattori


    Overheal wrote: »
    Was the gunner killed?

    Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill. Generally speaking you do not shoot. Theres dozens of non-lethal shots an officer can take in that situation, starting with the legs. Knees are alas, a no-no as it results in permanent injury. If you must kill the suspect, so be it, but you'd want to be awfully sure. 3 cops versus 1 crook? Thats questionable.

    The greatest shot ever taken by the law was by a US ranger; the gunmen was threatening to take his own life etc etc etc. As the police talked him down the ranger sniped the gun right out of his hand and it shattered into a dozen pieces right on camera. The suspect was never injured.

    Caught on camera eh? That must be on youtube, do you have a linky?


  • Options
    #69
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    ojewriej wrote: »
    You seem to forget that the robbers put people in PO through the trauma, not the guards.

    I haven't forgotten anything. The trauma of it all is what I said. Trauma that the robbers caused. The needless trauma of seeing people being shot dead. A trauma that could have been prevented before it even happened, but apparently the thiefs had to be caught doing the deed to throw their asses in the slammer, instead they ended up dead.:rolleyes: Only in Ireland.


  • Options
    #70
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,631 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    eo980 wrote: »
    Caught on camera eh? That must be on youtube, do you have a linky?

    Ask and you shall receive:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlZccz4UWIA


    English version (non-youtube): http://www.killsometime.com/video/video.asp?ID=953

    edit: yea i've clearly fudged up one or two details from recall: 1) they were police-trained snipers 2) reportedly the gun only broke into 3 pieces


  • Options
    #71
    passive
    Registered Users Posts: 2,403 ✭✭✭passive


    Ikky Poo2 wrote: »
    Nope, he's wrong. Both are past tense, was is singular. If there were more than one, he's have been fine.

    Subjunctive? New to me too!

    To quote a grammatically challenged Jedi master; "And that... is why you fail."
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Then go look it up, like I did. The obvious analogy is the phrase "If I were you, but I am not, I would do this". This is present tense, contrary to the indicative. (Indicative is when something is the case, and subjunctive is when something is not the case)

    NTM

    Thank you Manic, and glad you learned from this too. I looked it up beforehand too as, while I instinctively went for "were," I wasn't sure if it was exactly correct, and it would have been a pretty ironic post in which to screw up my word-making.

    Em... But on topic... Shooting is bad! Stay in school! Don't do drugs! Kill a rapper! erm... Go go gadget bulletproof vest?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,964 ✭✭✭✭Kintarō Hattori


    Overheal wrote: »
    Ask and you shall receive

    Wow, what an amazing shot. Thanks Overheal!


  • Options
    #73
    internelligent
    Registered Users Posts: 956 ✭✭✭internelligent


    coyote6 wrote: »
    Fantastically put Meath Stevie. You know what a pistol is REALLY for?....Fighitng your way to your rifle!:)

    Love it!:D


  • Options
    #74
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,631 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    eo980 wrote: »
    Wow, what an amazing shot. Thanks Overheal!

    aww what the hell? no thanks button in AH? You suck Terry*!

    *not really

    no problemo eo980


  • Options
    #75
    mawk
    Registered Users Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭mawk


    Overheal wrote: »
    Was the gunner killed?

    Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill. Generally speaking you do not shoot. Theres dozens of non-lethal shots an officer can take in that situation, starting with the legs. Knees are alas, a no-no as it results in permanent injury. If you must kill the suspect, so be it, but you'd want to be awfully sure. 3 cops versus 1 crook? Thats questionable.

    The greatest shot ever taken by the law was by a US ranger; the gunmen was threatening to take his own life etc etc etc. As the police talked him down the ranger sniped the gun right out of his hand and it shattered into a dozen pieces right on camera. The suspect was never injured.


    bull**** was he never unjured! about 13 cops kicked the head off him the moment he is disarmed, all in the name of safety..


    edit- should have actually watched the video. There was anoither similar one i was thinking of. but pretty much the same thing happened here


Advertisement