Police shooting people

Lemming · 26-03-2008 12:43AM

Captain Chaos wrote: »

In the McCarthy case, I believe he was hit once, failed to stop, hit again, he kept moving and then two shots fired in quick succession stopped him.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Which underscores why police forces shoot to kill. A single shot didn't stop him (had it been intended to wound) so intent was he on doing whatever it was that was going through his mind just prior to being killed.

But this isn't a discussion on AbbeyLara. I'm just using it as a recent and local incident of why police forces around the world tend to follow a shoot-to-kill policy above hoping to incapacitate. Maybe spec-ops teams could shoot-to-wound but then again, each of those folks is worth a significant amount of time & money.

johnnyskeleton · 26-03-2008 12:45AM

Overheal wrote: »

Theres been many a crook freed because the police used 'excessive force' - ie. trying to disable the man rather than kill him, a police officer shot a man in the knee-cap and the suspect got to walk free.

Hobbled more like.

lynnlegend · 26-03-2008 12:51AM

should we set up a voteing system i would if i knew how

coyote6 · 26-03-2008 12:52AM

Lemming wrote: »

Which underscores why police forces shoot to kill. A single shot didn't stop him (had it been intended to wound) so intent was he on doing whatever it was that was going through his mind just prior to being killed.

But this isn't a discussion on AbbeyLara. I'm just using it as a recent and local incident of why police forces around the world tend to follow a shoot-to-kill policy above hoping to incapacitate. Maybe spec-ops teams could shoot-to-wound but then again, each of those folks is worth a significant amount of time & money.

We are NOT trained to kill. We are trained to shoot to stop the threat. We train to shoot center mass of the target presented. If that means they die then I guess it's not a good plan to point guns at the police. Fair enough?

Where's Manic Moran when I need him?

lynnlegend · 26-03-2008 12:55AM

coyote6 wrote: »

We are NOT trained to kill. We are trained to shoot to stop the threat. We train to shoot center mass of the target presented. If that means they die then I guess it's not a good plan to point guns at the police. Fair enough?

Where's Manic Moran when I need him?

enough said then he had a gun he took a chance tough sh*t

Lemming · 26-03-2008 12:59AM

coyote6 wrote: »

We are NOT trained to kill. We are trained to shoot to stop the threat. We train to shoot center mass of the target presented. If that means they die then I guess it's not a good plan to point guns at the police. Fair enough?

Where's Manic Moran when I need him?

Sorry, poor choice of words. Let me rephrase that, not "shoot to wound" per-se. So in aiming for centre-mass it's all in the fate of the gods as to the target's survival or not.

Captain Chaos · 26-03-2008 12:59AM

Lemming wrote: »

Which underscores why police forces shoot to kill. A single shot didn't stop him (had it been intended to wound) so intent was he on doing whatever it was that was going through his mind just prior to being killed.

But this isn't a discussion on AbbeyLara. I'm just using it as a recent and local incident of why police forces around the world tend to follow a shoot-to-kill policy above hoping to incapacitate. Maybe spec-ops teams could shoot-to-wound but then again, each of those folks is worth a significant amount of time & money.

Exactly, my point was that that case was outside the norm as they shot to dis able or maim as they had the time and position to do so.

There is a reason that police forces are looking into less than lethal weapons and options, bean bag and teaser shot gun rounds aimed at center mass being popular ATM.

coyote6 · 26-03-2008 01:03AM

Lemming wrote: »

Sorry, poor choice of words. Let me rephrase that, not "shoot to wound" per-se. So in aiming for centre-mass it's all in the fate of the gods as to the target's survival or not.

I'm not sure about the fate thing. I just don't want to go home in a bag.

danger mouse · 26-03-2008 01:05AM

coyote6 wrote: »

We are NOT trained to kill. We are trained to shoot to stop the threat. We train to shoot center mass of the target presented. If that means they die then I guess it's not a good plan to point guns at the police. Fair enough?

Where's Manic Moran when I need him?

i totally agree.

if a person is known to have a gun on their person or points a gun at a law enforcement officer, they should be taken down, it doesn't matter about their current state of mind or agenda. they should be stopped at all costs. if that means killing them then so be it. It was their choice to carry a weapon in the first place. I'm sick of hearing stories about knackers pointing guns at cops and getting away, because the garda only have a pencil and note pad to defend themselves with. This usually means injury or death to innocent members of the public with their ****ty imported drug trade guns.

Spitfire666 · 26-03-2008 01:05AM

Lemming wrote: »

Sorry, poor choice of words. Let me rephrase that, not "shoot to wound" per-se. So in aiming for centre-mass it's all in the fate of the gods as to the target's survival or not.

As above

lynnlegend · 26-03-2008 01:06AM

coyote6 wrote: »

I'm not sure about the fate thing. I just don't want to go home in a bag.

dead right and an armed robber picks his own fate when he dosent drop his gun when three armed gardas tell him

coyote6 · 26-03-2008 01:10AM

Spitfire666 wrote: »

there is no such thinng as shoot to maim or wound or incepacitate or whatever else you want to say. if you need to shoot it is because the situation required it. so you shoot to kill. thats it.
its also cheaper to pay out if you shoot to kill rather then shoot to maim and the guy becomes paraplegic or whatever and the state have to pay for him for the rest of his life but then thats the sceptic's take on it.

Also, what does it matter how many people it is against 1 guy. if he has a gun and aims at one of any number of people, then he should be shot. just because it was 3 on 1 doesnt mean the danger of getting shot wasnt there.

Exactly right. I don't want to be "MOE" when the bad guy sez "EENY, MEENY, MINY", if you know what I mean!

Spitfire666 · 26-03-2008 01:18AM

at the end of the day, if the situation gets to a state where the guy is going to shoot or raises a gun at all, the fact that there are more then one cop just means that there is a 3 in 1 chance that a certain cop would be shot,but by looking at it the other way there are 3 cops to choose from if he shoots.

meathstevie · 26-03-2008 01:20AM

Your average centerfire pistol or revolver, which coincidentially happens to be the standard police firearm just about anywhere is not a precision tool it's more a matter of stopping power. It's main use would be defensive and it's main role would be transferring a good deal of energy on the target, hence the fairly big ( as in size of the bullet ) calibres being used.

A sniper rifle that would allow a precision shot is a completely different sort of an animal altogether. For starters it fires a completely different sort of bullet, is fired from the shoulder and not from the hand and more often than not additional supports ( bipods or shooting bags ) are being used. The barrel lenght would be many times longer in order to stabilise the bullet and provide accuracy over long distances etc etc.... This is only the firearm as such, as a rule aiming a sniper rifle is done through a telescopic sight : a high quality optical precision instrument zeroed on the particular rifle at a particular distance to target. A pistol or revolver with it's limited accuracy and range is often aimed by simple "iron sights", being a notch at the back to be lined up with a bead on the front.

Police officers carrying pistols or revolvers are not being trained to take "fancy shots" but are trained to neutralise a treath which means that you aim for the biggest visible surface of your target which is not a shoulder, elbow, knee or even head.

Remember that an average cop having to use a revolver or pistol on the job will be doing this in an extremely dangerous situation either to protect their own life, a buddy's life or an innocent civilian ( or all at the same time as happened in Lusk Post Office ) and does generally not have the luxury of being able to miss without dire consequences.

You should also keep in mind that when a cop has to use lethal force an inquest will always follow and while that is ongoing the officer(s) will quite often be suspended or at least taken of firearm duties and that in the overwhelming majority of cases they're found to have been acting perfectly within laws and regulations.

And when they're found not to have used lethal force in a legitimate way any self respecting democracy will start a disciplinary AND a criminal procedure against them that could lead to a murder or manslaughter conviction.

thelordofcheese · 26-03-2008 01:25AM

danger mouse wrote: »

stupid post /\/\

I wuvs you too, ya little scamp.

coyote6 · 26-03-2008 01:30AM

meathstevie wrote: »

Your average centerfire pistol or revolver, which coincidentially happens to be the standard police firearm just about anywhere is not a precision tool it's more a matter of stopping power. It's main use would be defensive and it's main role would be transferring a good deal of energy on the target, hence the fairly big ( as in size of the bullet ) calibres being used.

A sniper rifle that would allow a precision shot is a completely different sort of an animal altogether. For starters it fires a completely different sort of bullet, is fired from the shoulder and not from the hand and more often than not additional supports ( bipods or shooting bags ) are being used. The barrel lenght would be many times longer in order to stabilise the bullet and provide accuracy over long distances etc etc.... This is only the firearm as such, as a rule aiming a sniper rifle is done through a telescopic sight : a high quality optical precision instrument zeroed on the particular rifle at a particular distance to target. A pistol or revolver with it's limited accuracy and range is often aimed by simple "iron sights", being a notch at the back to be lined up with a bead on the front.

Police officers carrying pistols or revolvers are not being trained to take "fancy shots" but are trained to neutralise a treath which means that you aim for the biggest visible surface of your target which is not a shoulder, elbow, knee or even head.

Remember that an average cop having to use a revolver or pistol on the job will be doing this in an extremely dangerous situation either to protect their own life, a buddy's life or an innocent civilian ( or all at the same time as happened in Lusk Post Office ) and does generally not have the luxury of being able to miss without dire consequences.

You should also keep in mind that when a cop has to use lethal force an inquest will always follow and while that is ongoing the officer(s) will quite often be suspended or at least taken of firearm duties and that in the overwhelming majority of cases they're found to have been acting perfectly within laws and regulations.

And when they're found not to have used lethal force in a legitimate way any self respecting democracy will start a disciplinary AND a criminal procedure against them that could lead to a murder or manslaughter conviction.

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

Manic Moran · 26-03-2008 01:45AM

Why do they have to "blow them away"? Can't they just not shoot to maim?

No. You try it, see how well you do.

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.

Utter male bovine fecal matter.

As Coyote said: Shoot to stop. Once you have taken the decision that the target is a threat to life or limb, you aim centre mass, pull the trigger, and you keep pulling the trigger until either (a ) you run out of ammunition or (b ) the threat is no longer a threat. If the guy happens to survive, so be it. That's why they don't say 'shoot to kill', because that's not the intent. It's often the effect, but it's more a side-effect (albeit a pretty major one!). It will usually take more than one pistol calibre shot to stop someone, it's not Hollywood where a single 9mm round impacts on someone and he is thrown backwards. (Think Newton's third law and the effects on the shooter).

Stress is bad enough that you don't want to be trying fancy trick shots. Go watch 'World's Scariest Police Videos' or some such, and watch the shootouts happening at ranges of six feet where both sides manage to miss entirely. It's hard enough just to hit a man-sized target.

Where's Manic Moran when I need him?

Sorry. I'm in Ft Knox, learning how to more efficiently blow people away. It's a multi-national class, so there was this big shindig this evening at the O-Club where they all had tables with local delicacies and other national information. Tried the dates at the Jordanian table, I really don't see the big deal. Taiwan was pretty good though. Belgium, Germany and Canada were all offering beer...

Ah, the fringe benefits of applying yourself to the art of directed violence.

Going back to the original question, however...

the result of this was the three cops got taken off the job and there is a huge out cry about this

It's pretty much standard procedure that any time a cop shoots someone, he's suspended with pay while people figure out what happened. If it was an unjustified shoot, you don't want him on the street. Even if it was a justified shoot, the man has just shot someone, and is probably going to have to come to terms with it. This will take a little time, and it's not a bad thing to take him off the job for a while anyway, so the counsellers and whoever can help him out. As for the huge outcry, there's always a huge outcry, be it claims of racism, police brutality, or whatever. Ever notice how friends and family are always on the news afterwards saying "He was a good boy, would never hurt anyone". If he was such a good boy, what the hell was he doing threatening cops with a firearm?

NTM

coyote6 · 26-03-2008 01:53AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Utter male bovine fecal matter.

As Coyote said: Shoot to stop. Once you have taken the decision that the target is a threat to life or limb, you aim centre mass, pull the trigger, and you keep pulling the trigger until either (a ) you run out of ammunition or (b ) the threat is no longer a threat. If the guy happens to survive, so be it. That's why they don't say 'shoot to kill', because that's not the intent. It's often the effect, but it's more a side-effect (albeit a pretty major one!). It will usually take more than one pistol calibre shot to stop someone, it's not Hollywood where a single 9mm round impacts on someone and he is thrown backwards. (Think Newton's third law and the effects on the shooter).

Stress is bad enough that you don't want to be trying fancy trick shots. Go watch 'World's Scariest Police Videos' or some such, and watch the shootouts happening at ranges of six feet where both sides manage to miss entirely. It's hard enough just to hit a man-sized target.

Sorry. I'm in Ft Knox, learning how to more efficiently blow people away. It's a multi-national class, so there was this big shindig this evening at the O-Club where they all had tables with local delicacies and other national information. Tried the dates at the Jordanian table, I really don't see the big deal. Taiwan was pretty good though. Belgium, Germany and Canada were all offering beer...

Ah, the fringe benefits of applying yourself to the art of directed violence.

NTM

Hey Manic. If you're going to be in KY on the 11-13th of April make sure not to miss the machine gun shoot at Knob Creek. It's right up the road from Knox (about 5 or 10 miles east) I'll be in St. Louis on a trip....pity.

If you ever get up to Indiana send me a PM and we'll have a pint.

Manic Moran · 26-03-2008 02:01AM

Oh, I'll be there, though mainly just for the spectacle and to check out the vendors. I want to pick up a few magazines for my FAL and a new front sight and spring. I get enough machineguns at work, I don't need to pay for the pleasure.

Whereabouts in IA are you? I have plenty of weekends free between now and August.

NTM

coyote6 · 26-03-2008 02:30AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, I'll be there, though mainly just for the spectacle and to check out the vendors. I want to pick up a few magazines for my FAL and a new front sight and spring. I get enough machineguns at work, I don't need to pay for the pleasure.

Whereabouts in IA are you? I have plenty of weekends free between now and August.

NTM

I go for the vendors and the spectacle also. It's pretty fun.

I'm in Connersville, Indiana. It's about an hour E-SE of Indy and about 50 miles NE of Cincy. It'd be good to meet you.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 26-03-2008 02:34AM

passive wrote: »

I wish the grammar sheriff were around...

I wish the grammar sheriff WAS around

Dragan · 26-03-2008 02:39AM

Okay

3 simple rules when getting arrest by cops anywhere.

1) Do not have a gun
2) If you failed on the first one do NOT point the gun at the cops.
3) If, for some reason, you arm is raises and low and behold there is a gun on the end of it then don't give them any reason to think you will fire it***

***Disclaimer : At this point it's too late, but you don't need to know that ****ing up both 1 and 2 leads to three being impossible.

Suicide By Cop Vs Darwinism

Edit : As already said cops are trained to aim at center mass. The assumption is that if they need to fire, they need to put you down. This is what they are trained to do. Simple.

Manic Moran · 26-03-2008 02:39AM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I wish the grammar sheriff WAS around

Actually, I don't think he's wrong. "Was" is definitely past tense, but 'were' in this case is more of a passive present.

[ETA: After hunting around, apparently it's called the 'subjunctive', and is a contrary to an 'indicative.' Well, I did not know that. I am now more edumacated than I was.]

NTM

Sangre · 26-03-2008 02:49AM

I'd have quite strict gun control views but if you're confronted by the police and you've a firearm in your hand then you've forfeited your right to safety. The same goes for entering another person's house with a weapon.

In that kind of situation the safety of the gun holder is way down the list of a long list of priorities.

Ross_Mahon · 26-03-2008 02:56AM

If they brought in a self defense thing like America,It would be crazy!

Imagine scumbags with guns...:eek:

"Have ye got a smoke bud?" *BANG* lol

Fremen · 26-03-2008 03:20AM

I don't know much about the situation, but it sounds like the guy was asking to die. Any sane person should know that pointing a gun at a cop in the US is an instant death sentence.

I'd have to add that I'm incredibly glad that cops don't carry guns in Ireland. If that means a few idiot scumbags get away temporarily, so be it. I'm happy to be as far away from a killing machine as I can get, thanks very much.

Overheal · 26-03-2008 04:27AM

Even as a kid its a little disconcerting to see a cop's sidearm like that. They make a point of showing it off. It sends the right message to criminals but to society, no.

and yes Coyote thanks for noobing me.

Ross, to a lesser extent in happens. My friend used to work the door of a club in Limerick (I wont say which) and as this couple was getting into a cab some guy pulls a knife out on him.
So the boyfriend pulls out his gun, laughs at the knifer and says "this is the 90's mate." gets his cab and leaves the knifer there still shaken.

entropi · 26-03-2008 09:17AM

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Becasue the the police force of any country are not tought to shoot to maim or wound. Its a shoot to kill or defend policy.

This is the real world after all not Hollywood. The police and army do not practice drawing smiley faces with bullets on walls all day.

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 !!!

The fact is that most of the U.S. is awash with gun crime and criminals are not afraid to shoot at cops, which leads to some of them sometimes getting itchy trigger fingers and instead of remembering their training, they blow the poor bastard away with a handgun/shotgun/rifle. Now thats not what they should be doing but that's life i guess, and if they decided to give more detectives firearms in this country to shoot those who deserve it (those who took/intend to take a life etc) then so be it.

Having a gun in your hand is quite an idiotic thing to do, but when the fact is you could end up dead without even using it, whats the point in bringing it in the first place...they just don't always think ahead do they.

Handsome Bob · 26-03-2008 10:35AM

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.

I just love After Hours. Always full of reasoned, and clever posts.

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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 26-03-2008 10:52AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, I don't think he's wrong. "Was" is definitely past tense, but 'were' in this case is more of a passive present.

[ETA: After hunting around, apparently it's called the 'subjunctive', and is a contrary to an 'indicative.' Well, I did not know that. I am now more edumacated than I was.]

NTM

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!

Police shooting people

Comments